create_site

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description goes well beyond by disclosing the backend auto-seed of sample products/categories/blog, the default deletion of that seed (retaining the non-deletable 'All' category), the session switch behavior, the absence of any pages, and the free-account 4-site quota failure. This is exactly the non-obvious behavior an agent needs.

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?

Reasonably front-loaded, leading with the create-and-switch action before the seeding nuance. It is information-dense and most sentences earn their place, though the parenthetical about the 'All' category and the step-by-step workflow add length that could be tightened.

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 exists, yet the description explicitly states what is returned (an EMPTY, CLEAN site with no pages) and what the caller must do next to make it usable. For a creation tool with four parameters, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains the consequence of keep_seed:true (keep sample data) versus the default deletion, rather than merely restating the flag. It does not expand on name/slug syntax beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a brand-new storefront site for the current account') and immediately scopes it as an empty/clean site rather than a template-based one, which distinguishes it from the sibling create_site_from_template. An agent knows exactly what this produces without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear context for use (start from a blank on-theme store) and an explicit follow-on workflow (get_build_guide → new_section/new_element → build_page). It does not explicitly name create_site_from_template as the alternative for pre-populated sites, so the sibling routing is left partly to inference.

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