Create Plain Site

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

Annotations only include openWorldHint, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a side-effecting creation call and that the response is an operation_id, implying asynchronous tracking. It could add that the operation_id should be polled via kinsta_operations_status, but the core behavior is communicated.

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?

A single sentence states the operation, its distinguishing constraint, and the return value. There is no filler and no duplication of schema content.

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 two-parameter creation tool, the description plus schema cover what is created, what inputs are needed, and what is returned. The only minor gap is not explicitly directing the agent to poll the returned operation_id via the operations status tool.

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 coverage is 100%, with both required parameters described ('Deployment region' and 'Display name for the new site'). The description adds no additional parameter-level detail such as accepted region formats or naming constraints, so it stays at the schema-only 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 names a specific verb-resource pair ('Create a new plain site') and adds the key differentiator 'without WordPress installed'. This clearly distinguishes it from kinsta_sites_create and clone variants even before inspecting the schema.

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 phrase 'without WordPress installed' provides a clear decision criterion for when to choose this tool over a standard site creation flow. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool such as kinsta_sites_create, so it falls just short of full routing guidance.

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