Create website

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description is consistent. It adds valuable behavioral context: creation is asynchronous ('takes up to a few minutes to complete') and requires polling the websites list endpoint. It also discloses that a new hosting account is provisioned when datacenter_code is supplied. This exceeds mere annotation repetition without contradicting it.

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 four sentences, each earning its place: it states the action, lists required inputs, explains the datacenter nuance, and gives completion/timing guidance. It is front-loaded and free of redundancy, making it an example of tight, efficient writing.

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?

For a 3-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers required and optional parameters, the datacenter situation, and how to verify success. It doesn't mention error conditions or authentication, but those are commonly understood across the API; except for the lack of sibling differentiation, nothing critical is missing.

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?

Input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The overall description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains that 'subsequent websites will be hosted on the same datacenter automatically,' which clarifies why datacenter_code is only required on the first website. This extra context justifies a higher score than baseline.

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 a specific action: 'Create a new website for the authenticated client.' This gives a verb and resource, making the tool's purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like horizons_createWebsiteV1 or agency-hosting_createANewWebsiteV1, which also create websites, so it doesn't fully earn a 5.

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 provides concrete usage context: it explains that datacenter_code is required for the first website on a new hosting plan, and that subsequent websites reuse the datacenter automatically. It also tells how to verify completion (check the websites list endpoint). This is clear guidance for when to use the tool, though it does not mention any alternative tools or when not to use it.

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