create_site

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so impressively. It discloses that duplicate URLs are refused with site_exists, that retries replay the original result, and that the response includes id and tracking code. This goes well beyond the schema.

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 front-loaded with the core action and result, then packs critical behavioral details into a few tight sentences. Every clause earns its place, including the rationale for refusing duplicate URLs.

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?

Even without an output schema or annotations, the description is complete for a 3-parameter creation tool. It gives a response shape, explains duplicate and retry behavior, and points to the necessary next step, so an agent can invoke it correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the URL scheme requirement and includes timezone in the response example, but it does not add substantive new meaning to the hobby or timezone parameters beyond what the schema already states.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Add a site to this account' and specifies the exact outcome ('get back its id and tracking code'). It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like list_sites and update_site, even without naming them.

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 creation use case is obvious, and the description adds concrete guidance about URL requirements, duplicate rejection, and idempotent retries. It also recommends following with get_tracking_snippet, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with update_site or other alternatives.

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