Create Site

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

The description adds useful behavior by stating that the tool returns an operation_id to track progress, implying an asynchronous workflow. However, it does not disclose whether the operation requires polling, how long creation might take, side effects, or permission requirements. With minimal annotations beyond openWorldHint, the description carries most of the burden but only partially fulfills 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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and adds the key return-value detail without unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool with 12 parameters and no output schema, the description is somewhat thin. It does not explicitly tell the agent to poll kinsta_operations_status with the returned operation_id, nor does it mention that the creation may take time. The schema covers parameters, but the orchestration context around the async operation is only implied.

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 description coverage is 92%, so the input schema already documents nearly all parameters. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable given the high coverage; it does not repeat or clarify anything 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 action ('Create') and the resource ('a new WordPress site on Kinsta'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate this tool from the sibling kinsta_sites_create-plain, which likely serves a similar or simpler creation flow.

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 use when a new WordPress site needs to be created, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like kinsta_sites_create-plain or kinsta_sites_clone. No exclusions, prerequisites, or selection criteria are provided.

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