create_site

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, consistent with creation. The description adds that it creates vhost, directory, and system user, providing transparency beyond annotations. It does not mention permissions or side effects, but for a creation tool, this is reasonable.

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?

Two concise sentences. First sentence states the action with parenthetical details, second clarifies scope. No extraneous words.

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?

No output schema is provided. The description lacks information about the return value (e.g., site ID or details). Given it's a creation tool, this is a gap. However, sibling tools (get_site, list_sites) can be used to inspect the result. The description covers the key behavioral aspects adequately.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all 5 parameters. The description groups them as 'vhost, directory, system user' but adds little new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 creates a new site on a server, specifying components (vhost, directory, system user). It distinguishes from siblings like deploy_site by noting that deployment is separate.

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 usage guidance by stating it provisions an empty site and that repository installation/deployment is done separately. This implies the tool is for creating the site shell, not deploying code. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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