setup_nodejs_app

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the artifacts it writes (Passenger config, .htaccess, starter files, domain mapping), which is genuinely useful, but it says nothing about idempotency, what happens if app_root already contains files, whether existing .htaccess rules are overwritten, required authentication, or whether the app is started or merely staged.

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?

A single tight sentence with the action front-loaded and the provisioning components listed in a readable sequence. No filler. It is arguably too short rather than too long, which is penalized elsewhere, not here.

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?

For a 7-parameter, multi-step provisioning operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is created but not the outcome — no return information, no stated post-conditions (is the app live? does it need restart_nodejs_app?), and no linkage to run_npm_install, configure_nodejs_env, or destroy_nodejs_app. Adequate but with clear gaps for a high-impact write operation.

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 100% with defaults and an enum for env_mode, so every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning — for example, it doesn't tie 'app_root' to the domain document root or explain how 'port' interacts with Passenger. Baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb pair ('Provision and configure') on a specific resource ('complete Node.js application') and enumerates what gets created: Passenger, .htaccess routing, starter files, domain mapping. That distinguishes it from generic file or domain tools, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with closely-named siblings such as register_passenger_app or setup_python_app.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over register_passenger_app/enable_passenger_app, nor over setup_python_app or provision_full_website. No prerequisites are stated — no mention that the domain must already exist, that app_root is created, or that run_npm_install likely follows. The agent must infer all sequencing from tool names alone.

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