Scaffold a whole website from one spec

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

The description discloses behavioral traits beyond the neutral annotations: it specifies that the site is 'persisted through the website store and rendered to the site location', and explains the 'initGit' parameter behavior (git init and commit, returning the repo path). However, it does not mention potential side effects like overwriting an existing site, or any prerequisites. The annotations provide no hints, so the description carries the full burden, which it largely meets.

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 concise (four sentences) and front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence adds value: the first states the main purpose, the second explains persistence and location, the third details the 'initGit' option, and the fourth suggests pairing with another tool. No redundant or unnecessary 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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, nested objects) and lack of output schema, the description covers the core functionality well: it explains what is set, where it is stored, and a key optional behavior. However, it omits the output format (beyond 'repo path' for initGit) and does not mention error cases or prerequisites. It is sufficient for typical usage but could be more 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 description adds some meaning beyond the schema: it lists home page fields (title, tagline, theme, sections) and explains the 'initGit' parameter. However, with 57% schema description coverage, the description does not fully compensate for missing parameter descriptions (e.g., 'project' and 'tagline' lack schema docs and are not detailed in the description). The description maps to most parameters but does not explain format or constraints beyond the 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 tool's purpose: 'Generate a whole site in one shot from a single spec.' It specifies the verb ('Generate' or 'scaffold') and the resource ('a whole site'). It also distinguishes from the sibling tool 'set_site' by noting it works 'instead of set_site field-by-field.'

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 explicitly contrasts with the alternative 'set_site' and recommends pairing with the 'generate_site prompt' to produce the spec. This provides clear guidance on when to use this tool (for bulk site creation from a spec) and mentions a complementary tool. No exclusions are needed.

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