Create website

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations indicate a non-readonly, non-destructive operation, but the description adds valuable behavioral details: creation takes a few minutes, subsequent websites share the datacenter automatically, and the order_id determines the hosting plan. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent set expectations. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured, with a clear opening purpose, followed by parameter guidance, then behavioral notes. Every sentence adds value and there is no fluff. It is appropriately concise for the complexity of the operation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the essential aspects: required parameters, how to find order_id, datacenter logic, asynchronous completion, and verification method. It does not address potential error cases (e.g., duplicate domain, insufficient permissions), but for a create tool with no output schema, it is largely complete. The only minor gap is the lack of mention of failure handling.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds extra context: it clarifies that order_id selects the hosting plan, that datacenter_code is conditionally required for the first website, and that datacenter is automatically reused for later websites. This enriches the schema descriptions and aids correct usage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool creates a new website for the authenticated client, and explains the key context of selecting a hosting order and domain. It is specific about the resource and action. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other create-website tools in the sibling list (e.g., agency-hosting_createANewWebsiteV1, horizons_createWebsiteV1), so it's clear but not fully distinguishing.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives strong guidance on how to use the tool: it explains that the order_id is required, how to find it, and that datacenter_code is needed for the first website on a new plan. It also mentions the asynchronous nature and how to verify completion. It does not explicitly discuss when to prefer this tool over alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to use it appropriately.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.