harvis.dev

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses that no auth is required, that claimUrl is private and unrecoverable, and that an unclaimed site is permanently deleted 24 hours after its last deploy and cannot be restored. It also spells out the three returned values (url, claimUrl, deployToken) and their lifecycle meaning, which is exactly the destructive/irreversible context an agent needs before calling.

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?

Front-loads purpose and outcome, then covers outputs, update semantics, and user-facing warnings in a dense but non-redundant paragraph. It is on the long side and mixes invocation semantics with agent-to-user instructions, but nearly every sentence carries unique 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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain returns — it does so precisely (url, claimUrl, deployToken) and adds the token's reuse semantics. Combined with lifecycle and privacy warnings, an agent has everything needed to call and follow up correctly.

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 the baseline is 3; the description goes further by explaining that deployToken alone identifies the site and subdomain is only an optional safety guard. This meaningfully clarifies the update path, though it slightly conflicts with the schema's wording that each 'Requires' the other, and it adds no detail on file path/encoding semantics 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?

States a specific verb and resource (publish a static website to harvis.dev) plus the immediate outcome (live public URL). There are no sibling tools to differentiate from, and the purpose is unambiguous in the first sentence.

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?

Explicitly covers the create-vs-update decision: pass deployToken on a later call to UPDATE in place instead of creating a new one, and note that subdomain is optional and only guards against updating the wrong site. It also states no account or authentication is needed, removing a common prerequisite question.

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