sitebay_create_site

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the tool creates a site and returns success details, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this is a long-running operation, what permissions are required, whether the FQDN must be unique/available, what happens if creation fails, or any rate limits. The description is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns) and efficiently organized. Each parameter explanation is concise yet informative. The only minor inefficiency is repeating 'Optional' for multiple parameters when a single note could suffice, but overall it's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, mutation operation) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is moderately complete. It covers parameter semantics well but lacks behavioral context about the creation process. For a site creation tool with no annotations, it should provide more operational guidance about what the creation entails.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by providing clear semantic explanations for all 11 parameters. It explains what each parameter represents (e.g., 'Team UUID that owns the site', 'fully qualified domain name', 'Admin email address'), identifies which are optional, and provides formatting examples. This adds significant value 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 clearly states the specific action ('Create a new WordPress site') and resource ('SiteLiveCreate schema'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like sitebay_get_site, sitebay_update_site, and sitebay_delete_site. It explicitly identifies this as a creation operation rather than retrieval, modification, or deletion.

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 like sitebay_update_site or sitebay_list_sites. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a team_id from sitebay_list_teams) or constraints (e.g., domain availability). The only implicit guidance is that it's for creating new sites, not modifying existing ones.

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