Create Content Security Policy (CSP) Trusted Site

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

Annotations indicate readOnly=false, idempotent=true, and openWorld=true, but the description does not explain idempotency behavior (e.g., duplicate handling) or permission requirements. It only says 'Creates,' which is already implied by the annotations, adding little beyond them.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, then adds usage context and parameter guidance. It is readable and without unnecessary filler, though it could be slightly more concise.

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 covers the what and when well, but it does not mention return values (no output schema present) or any prerequisites. For a moderate-complexity creation tool with full schema coverage, it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 schema already provides 100% description coverage for all parameters. The description reiterates directive examples but does not add new semantic details beyond what the schema already contains.

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 that it creates a Content Security Policy trusted site, with a specific verb and resource. It also explains the purpose (allowing LWC/Visualforce to load external resources) and distinguishes it from other creation tools by its focus on CSP.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: when LWC uses external JavaScript libraries, fonts, images, or APIs. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools like Remote Site Settings, so it lacks an explicit exclusion.

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