Execute a Static Website Deployment

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond the annotations, including free-space checking, checksum verification, atomic activation, health-checking, and reversibility. This adds valuable context for an agent deciding whether this tool is safe and appropriate; it also does not contradict the provided annotations.

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 two focused sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and enriched with the key operational details. Every clause adds needed context without redundancy or wasted words.

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?

The description gives a solid operational overview including safety and reversibility, but it lacks any explanation of return values, failure behavior, or how to obtain/interpret 'releaseId' and 'sourceRoot'. Given the absence of an output schema and zero parameter documentation, the description is not fully sufficient for correct invocation.

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 no parameter descriptions, and the description only indirectly hints at 'sourceRoot' through 'local static site' and at 'releaseId' through 'new release'. The optional 'rootIndex' parameter is not mentioned at all, so the description provides minimal meaning beyond the bare schema names.

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 identifies the tool as executing a static website deployment, using specific verbs like 'Stage', 'verify', 'atomically activate', and 'health-check'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools such as whatbox_website_rollback and whatbox_website_deployment_plan by describing its unique role in the deployment lifecycle.

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 for when to use the tool (after validation, before rollback) and explicitly mentions rollback as a reversal option. It does not, however, explicitly state exclusions or prerequisites such as 'do not use if the site has not been validated' or 'use the deployment plan tool first'.

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