agency-hosting_deployPhpApplication

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 clearly warns that the operation overwrites existing contents and cannot be undone, explains the synchronous deployment behavior, describes the upload/import process, and notes that the website UID is auto-resolved from the domain.

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 front-loaded with the most critical warning, then covers use case, mechanism, synchronicity, and alternatives. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 destructive deployment operation with no output schema, this description is comprehensive: it explains prerequisites, process, overwrite risk, synchronous behavior, and the relevant sibling alternative. The rich parameter schema covers the remaining operational details.

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%, so the schema already provides strong parameter semantics. The description adds contextual details like TUS upload and auto-resolution of the website UID, but does not substantially extend the meaning of individual parameters beyond what the schema already states.

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+resource combination: 'Deploy a PHP (or other non-build) Agency Plan (h5g) website from an archive file.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling deploy tools by specifying 'no build step' and directly naming the alternative for node-static builds.

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 the tool ('Use this for Agency Plan websites where the archive contents should be extracted and served as-is with no build step') and points to an alternative: 'For node-static websites that require a build step, use agencyHosting_deployNodeStaticWebsite instead.' It also adds a critical warning about confirming with the user before proceeding.

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