site_create

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

Description goes beyond annotations by detailing the two-step API flow (probe then create), marking new_owner as experimental and untested, and explicitly calling out the WRITE nature with dry_run recommendation. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint=false supports write).

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?

Two well-organized paragraphs: first introduces purpose and key constraints (SSL, atomic creation), second explains the flow and parameter relationships. Every sentence adds essential information with no redundancy.

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?

Given 11 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description comprehensively covers purpose, usage flow, parameter relationships, behavioral notes, and cross-references to sibling tools. It leaves no major gaps for an agent to misinterpret.

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?

Despite high schema coverage (82%), the description adds significant value: for ips, it tells where to get values; for handler, explains differences and recommends checking existing sites; for owner fields, clarifies mutual exclusivity; for database, notes optionality; for domain, gives examples. This enriches understanding beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Create', the resource 'new website in FastPanel', and specifies the endpoint '/api/master wizard'. It distinguishes from siblings like site_update and certificate_create_letsencrypt by noting that SSL is not issued and must be done separately.

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?

Explicitly provides when-to-use and when-not: 'Does NOT issue SSL — call certificate_create_letsencrypt after site is active.' It also gives a clear two-step flow with dry_run then confirm, and advises using site_get to determine preferred handler. Mutual exclusivity of owner_id and new_owner is explained.

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