Plan a Static Website Deployment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: 'allowlisted', 'redacted, signed', and reinforces no state changes. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them. It could mention validation failure handling, but the output schema likely covers that.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence immediately states the action and resource; the second clarifies the safety boundary. Every clause adds 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?

The description covers the core purpose, safety profile, and adds specific details like allowlisting and redaction. Annotations and output schema cover the remaining behavioral and return information. It is slightly incomplete regarding when to use this versus the many sibling tools, but that is more of a usage guideline issue already scored.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It only addresses 'sourceRoot' implicitly via 'source', leaving 'releaseId' and 'rootIndex' completely unexplained. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter 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 uses specific verbs ('Validate', 'create') and identifies the resource ('local static-site source', 'deployment plan'). It explicitly states the tool never uploads files or changes Whatbox state, which distinguishes it from deploy_execute and rollback siblings. This is a clear, non-tautological purpose.

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 implies this is a pre-deployment planning step by saying it does not upload or change state. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The sibling list provides context, but the tool could be confused with readiness or diagnostics tools without more explicit direction.

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