agency-hosting_deployNodeStaticWebsite

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 prominently warns that the tool overwrites existing content irreversibly and instructs to confirm with the user. It further explains the internal process (TUS upload, build-assets, deployment to public_html) and explicitly notes that completion means the site is live. This is comprehensive behavioral transparency for a mutation tool.

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 dense but every sentence adds value: purpose, warning, applicability, process, synchrony, alternative, and ID resolution. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the most critical info (purpose and warning). Despite its length, it remains efficient and purposeful.

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 tool is moderately complex (deployment with build step), and the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, the destructive nature, the synchronous behavior, and the outcome (site live). With no output schema, it explains what completion means. The alternative tool is also mentioned, preventing misuse. This is a complete and self-contained description.

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?

While the schema provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, the description adds significant extra meaning: it specifies supported archive formats (zip, tar, tar.gz, tgz), instructs on creating an archive from a directory with an exact naming pattern, and clarifies that the domain resolves the website UID automatically. This goes beyond the schema's basic field explanations, enriching param understanding.

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 tool's purpose: deploying a node-static Agency Plan website from an archive file. It specifies the target website type (node-static), distinguished from PHP applications via an explicit alternative (agencyHosting_deployPhpApplication). The mention of the build step and deployment to public_html adds precise context, making it unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Use this for Agency Plan websites of type node-static') and provides an alternative for PHP apps. It also includes crucial guidance about confirming with the user due to destructive overwriting, and clarifies that the operation is synchronous, so no polling is needed. This fully addresses usage conditions.

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