deploy_site

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool returns a live URL and requires an account for first deploy, but it does not clarify if the tool overwrites an existing deployment with the same name, what happens on failure, or any rate limits. The behavioral traits are partially revealed but leave gaps.

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 three sentences long, front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, and then provides contextual usage and account info. Every sentence adds value without redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 complexity (3 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description does not fully equip the agent. It omits parameter semantics, does not describe the return format beyond 'live URL', and does not mention error handling or idempotency. The tool's purpose is clear, but the surrounding context for execution is lacking.

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 schema has 3 parameters (name, files, industry) with 0% description coverage. The description does not elaborate on what any of these parameters mean—e.g., what the 'name' field represents, how the 'files' object is structured (path-to-content mapping), or the purpose of 'industry'. Without this, the agent cannot confidently populate the parameters.

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 verb 'deploy', the resource 'static website to EliteSpec hosting', and the outcome 'returns a live URL on *.elitespec.co.nz'. It distinctly sets the tool apart from its siblings list_sites and update_site, which are for listing and updating existing sites respectively.

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 says when to use the tool: when the user has a website (HTML+CSS+JS+images) ready to go live. It also mentions ideal use cases (landing pages, small business sites, portfolios) and a prerequisite (one-time EliteSpec account). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, which would be helpful.

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