Create website

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

The annotations only provide basic read/write/destructive hints, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It reveals that generation is asynchronous, that the tool returns a website URL and ID, that the chat reply must be exactly one sentence, that no code should be written, and how failures should be handled. This is comprehensive behavioral disclosure with no contradictions.

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 longer than average, but it is well-sectioned and front-loaded with the core purpose and usage trigger. The following behavioral instructions and technology constraints are verbose but each section serves a distinct purpose, from post-call reply formatting to strict stack enforcement. It could be tightened slightly without losing value.

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 lack of an output schema, the description provides the essential post-invocation knowledge: the tool returns a URL and ID, generation is asynchronous, and the agent must immediately share the URL with a specific one-sentence response. It also covers failure handling. A small gap is that it doesn't mention any follow-up status-checking tool or polling flow, though the sibling list includes horizons_getWebsiteV1.

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 single 'message' parameter is already fully documented in the schema at 100% coverage, including the nested text/type structure and the requirement for a detailed project specification. The description adds nothing specific about the parameter format or how to construct the message, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The technology-stack constraints are relevant context but not parameter semantics.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create new Hostinger Horizons website from the given message.' It also names the concrete user intents that should trigger it ('landing page, blog or any other type of application'), and the Hostinger Horizons qualifier distinguishes it from sibling website-creation tools like hosting_createWebsiteV1.

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 gives explicit trigger conditions: 'Use this tool when user asks you to create a website, landing page, blog or any other type of application.' It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it, but the trigger is clear and the asynchronous behavior and expected reply structure further guide usage.

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