agency-hosting_buildAgencyPlanWebsiteNodeJSAssetsV1

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 explicitly states a destructive side effect: 'Website contents are overwritten by the build result'. It also clarifies the deployment target ('public_html'). This adequately informs the agent of the tool's impact.

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?

Three sentences covering purpose, prerequisite, and outcome with no redundant information. Front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds necessary context.

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 of a build-and-deploy tool and the lack of output schema, the description covers the main input, prerequisite, and outcome. It does not mention error handling or build duration, but the core behavior is sufficiently described for an agent to use it correctly.

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 already provides descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage). The description adds value by explaining that 'archive_path' is 'relative to the website document root' and gives a common example ('public_html'), plus instructs to upload first. This enriches the agent's understanding beyond the schema.

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 ('Builds and deploys'), the resource ('Node.js application for an Agency Plan website'), and the method ('from an already-uploaded archive'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like generic Node.js build tools by specifying the 'Agency Plan' context and the prerequisite of an uploaded archive.

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 a clear prerequisite ('Upload the archive to file browser first') and implies the step of providing the relative path, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., for non-Agency-Plan sites or non-Node.js apps). No mention of when not to use.

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