create_website_share

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only implies a write via the verb 'Create'. It says nothing about required permissions or roles, whether the share is public or expiring, what the created share contains, or whether it can be revoked.

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?

It is short but this is under-specification rather than conciseness: a four-word fragment carries no load-bearing information beyond the tool name already visible to the agent.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations, an undocumented nested object parameter, no output schema, and a huge sibling set — the description supplies none of the context needed to call it correctly or safely.

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 0% for three parameters, including a nested free-form 'parameters' object with additionalProperties unspecified. The description does not explain websiteId scoping, what 'name' labels, or what keys the nested object accepts.

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 'Create a website share' simply restates the tool name create_website_share, adding no scope, no explanation of what a 'website share' is (public link, embed, permission grant?), and no differentiation from the sibling create_share or list_website_shares.

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?

There is no guidance at all on when to use this versus create_share, list_website_shares, get_share_by_id, or update_share. The agent is left to infer the choice purely from names in a very large sibling list.

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