Add site

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the burden of disclosure. It reveals that secret credential fields are stored as .env variable references rather than literal values, which is important behavioral context. However, it does not mention other traits such as overwrite behavior, validation, or required permissions.

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 compact, with the main purpose stated in the first sentence and a security-relevant caveat in the second. While the caveat repeats schema content, it's relevant and doesn't bloat the description.

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 simple add operation, the description covers the core purpose and secret handling, but lacks specifics on outcomes, error scenarios, or integration with other site-management tools. The presence of nested objects and no output schema suggests more detail could be helpful.

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 description does not add meaning beyond the schema; the secret-field behavior it mentions is already stated in the credentials parameter description. It also does not clarify the url or default_author parameters, leaving 40% of the schema without additional explanation.

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's function with a specific verb and resource ('Add a publishing target to config/sites.yaml'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like remove_site and list_sites.

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 implies usage (adding a publishing target) but does not explicitly provide when-to-use guidance or contrast with alternatives. The secret-handling caveat offers a directive but not usage context.

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