Create Experience Cloud Site

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

Annotations already indicate it is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context: 'Site starts in UnderConstruction status by default' and explains how urlPathPrefix affects the URL. This goes beyond the annotations but does not cover potential side effects like duplicate names or permission requirements.

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: three sentences and no redundant statements. It front-loads the core action, then efficiently covers templates, URL behavior, and default status. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 creation tool with 7 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description adds enough context for the main decision points. It covers template options, URL prefix semantics, and default status. There is no output schema, so return values need not be explained. It does not mention error scenarios or prerequisites, but these are not essential.

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%, so a baseline of 3 applies. The description enhances parameter understanding by explaining template use cases (e.g., 'CustomerService (B2C self-service)') and providing a concrete urlPathPrefix example ('customers' → org.force.com/customers). This adds value beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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 function: 'Creates an Experience Cloud site (formerly Community) using a specified template.' It is specific about the resource and includes useful details like template types. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as sf_create_experience_page, so it stops short of a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no reference to sf_create_experience_page or any other tool, and no exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned. The template list implies certain use cases, but this is more about parameter options than usage decisions.

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