deploy_website

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

No annotations provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It explains PDF/document conversion and create vs. update behavior based on websiteId. However, it omits whether deployment is synchronous, permission requirements, or error conditions.

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 states the core action and supported types; the second adds conversion details. Every word is informative.

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?

Covers input types, optional parameters, and conversion logic. Missing details about output (e.g., returns website URL or ID), sync/async nature, and potential errors. For a deploy tool with no output schema, these gaps are notable but not critical.

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%, but the description adds significant value beyond field names: it clarifies that zipFile accepts multiple formats, explains auto-packaging for directories, and details templateId's scope (only for documents) and fileName fallback.

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 'deploy static website to Demox platform' and lists supported input types (directory, ZIP, PDF, documents) with conversion behavior. This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on domain management and website CRUD operations.

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 when to use this tool (for deployment), but does not explicitly contrast with siblings like check_custom_domain or list_websites. No guidance on when NOT to use it or alternatives.

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