create_site

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and does so excellently. It discloses that the backend auto-seeds sample data, that the tool deletes it by default, that the site has no pages, and that free accounts have a 4-site quota. These are critical non-obvious behaviors.

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 dense and well-organized, starting with the primary action and then layering important caveats and workflow steps. There is no fluff, and every sentence adds meaningful 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?

Despite having no output schema, the description covers the creation process, default behaviors, quota limitations, and next steps. It provides enough context for an agent to invoke the tool and understand the immediate consequences and follow-up actions.

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. The description adds extra semantic value by explaining the practical effect of keep_seed (keep sample data vs. delete) and switch_to (changes session context), which goes beyond the schema's straightforward definitions.

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 brand-new storefront site for the current account, with specific behavior (switching to it, returning an empty clean site). It distinguishes itself from related sibling tools like create_site_from_template by emphasizing the blank, no-template nature of the created site.

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 clear context on when to use this tool and a recommended follow-up workflow (get_build_guide → new_section/new_element → build_page). It does not explicitly mention alternatives like create_site_from_template, so it lacks explicit exclusion guidance, but the context is strong.

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