Provision Agency Website

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the high-level action without disclosing side effects, such as billing, asynchronous completion, or changes to the order. This is insufficient for a mutating provision operation.

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 a single, focused sentence with zero fluff, earning its place. However, it is overly minimal, bordering on under-specification, though it is concise without being verbose.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and a mutating action, the description is incomplete. It lacks context on what 'provision' entails, how long it takes, what the response contains, or how it relates to order_id and existing orders.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (order_id and domain), giving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate given the schema handles it.

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 provisions a new Agency Plan website, using the verb 'provision' and identifying the resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like agency_website_get and agency_website_delete by indicating creation of a 'new' website, though it could be more specific about prerequisites.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention the required order_id, any context about order status, or comparisons to other provisioning/creation tools like hosting_websites_create or horizons_create_website.

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