Create a site

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint:true and readOnlyHint:false, but the description adds specific side effects: 'may notify recipients or change tenant data' and explicitly requires confirm:true. This is meaningful behavioral disclosure beyond the structured annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded: the primary action is stated first, followed by the endpoint, body fields, reference link, and important caveats. Every sentence contributes necessary operational information without redundancy or filler.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key operational aspects: endpoint, required fields, prerequisite confirm flag, and side effects. It could go further by describing the expected response format or an example payload, but it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly with the reference link.

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%, but the body parameter is only generically described as a complete JSON payload. The description adds value by naming the four expected body fields (name, country, language, timezone). The confirm constraint is also reiterated. This goes beyond the schema's generic body reference.

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 'Create a site' with the exact REST endpoint (POST /api/xm/1/sites) and enumerates the body fields (name, country, language, timezone). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like modify_a_site and delete_a_site without requiring schema inspection.

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 gives an implied usage context (creating a new site) and lists a prerequisite (operator write opt-in and confirm:true), but it does not explicitly route the agent away from alternatives like modify_a_site or state when not to use this tool. No comparison with siblings is offered.

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