create_website

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not idempotent, and the description adds the useful prerequisite that write permission is required. It does not disclose side effects or response behavior, but with annotations covering the basic safety profile, this is adequate though not rich.

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 entire description is one short sentence with no filler. It front-loads the operation type and includes only the essential permission note. Every word contributes value.

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 description is minimally viable: it names the operation, platform, and permission requirement, while the schema covers parameter details. It does not mention expected response, relationship to website groups, or any post-create behavior, but for a simple create call with a fully documented schema this is acceptable.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents all 7 parameters including required fields and defaults. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable because the schema carries the full semantic burden.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Create a website check') and identifies the platform (LogicMonitor). It distinguishes this from the sibling create_website_group by specifying 'website check' rather than group, so there is no ambiguity about what is being created.

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 clearly establishes when the tool applies: use it to create a website check in LogicMonitor. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the wording is precise enough that an agent can tell it apart from related tools like create_website_group or update_website.

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