Create a Warpweb site

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It thoroughly discloses critical behavior: immediate async return of siteId/status, 3–8 minute build time, polling/webhook options, credit cost, failed-builds-are-free policy, and the risk of building for the wrong business if searching fails. This is far beyond minimal disclosure.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place. It opens with a high-level action, then structured details, bolded requirements, warnings, and a cost/async addendum. It is long because the tool is complex, yet it avoids fluff and prioritizes mission-critical information. The formatting (bold, paragraph breaks) makes it easy to scan.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and the high complexity (9 params, async behavior, fallback risk), the description is remarkably complete. It explains the return value shape (siteId, status), next steps (poll or subscribe), cost, failure policy, and ideal business fit. No significant informational gap remains for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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?

Although the schema already documents all 9 parameters (100% coverage), the description adds critical operational semantics: contactEmail is the only user-required input, placeId must come from a prior search_businesses call, ownerPrompt should only be captured if voluntarily offered, and businessLocation is strongly recommended for local SEO. This guidance goes well beyond the schema and is essential for correct invocation.

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 purpose: 'Kick off an end-to-end website build for a real business' and enumerates exactly what the build includes (research, copy, design, multi-page site, SEO, deployment). It naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_site (which retrieves status) and search_businesses (which supplies the required placeId).

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 provides explicit usage guidance: it names the ideal use case ('Best for service-based local businesses'), instructs when to use search_businesses first, warns against asking the user for content inputs, and explains the async flow with polling alternatives. It also specifies when falling back without a placeId is acceptable, giving clear when-to/not-to-use context.

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