cdn_setup_cdn_for_website

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that it creates a CDN zone and returns setup details, but it does not disclose side effects like cost, whether it modifies existing zones, or any prerequisites. The 'optimal settings' are not defined, leaving some ambiguity. However, it is a create operation, so the core behavior is clear.

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: one sentence for purpose, a brief args list, and a returns line. It is front-loaded with the primary action and wastes no words. The structure is clean and scannable.

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?

The presence of an output schema means return details are covered, and the parameter explanations are solid. However, it omits contextual details such as whether the zone will be provisioned immediately, any region constraints, or whether it overwrites an existing zone. For a setup tool with multiple siblings, a bit more context about the setup process would be valuable.

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?

The description explains each parameter's purpose (origin domain, security, compression, regions) and even notes the default for regions (global). The schema has 0% description coverage, so these explanations add critical meaning that the schema alone lacks. This is comprehensive and goes beyond the bare schema.

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 ('Set up') and resource ('CDN zone') with a clear scope ('for a website'), and the name 'cdn_setup_cdn_for_website' distinguishes it from simpler siblings like cdn_create_cdn_zone or dns_setup_website. The purpose is immediately clear and unambiguous.

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 implies usage for website CDN setup with 'optimal settings', but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. Siblings like cdn_create_cdn_zone exist, but there is no guidance on which to choose, leaving the agent to infer based on the name and description.

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