agencyHosting_deployPhpApplication

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden. It details the full workflow: domain resolution, archive upload via TUS, import-archive trigger, synchronous execution, and immediate live state after success. It explicitly warns about irreversible overwrite. No behavioral traits are hidden.

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 a single paragraph that is thorough but somewhat lengthy. While each sentence adds value, it could be more structured (e.g., bullet points for warnings and workflow). It front-loads purpose and warning effectively, but the density reduces scanability slightly.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description covers the outcome (synchronous, website live on success). It explains the destructive nature and the steps involved. Missing details about potential error handling or return format, but for a deployment tool, the essential context is present. It adequately compensates for missing output schema.

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%. The description adds significant value beyond schema: it explains the workflow for archivePath (creating an archive from a directory with a specific naming pattern), supported formats (zip, tar, tar.gz, tgz), and default behavior for removeArchive. This extra context aids correct selection and invocation.

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 it deploys a PHP (or other non-build) Agency Plan website from an archive. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool agencyHosting_deployNodeStaticWebsite, which is for node-static websites requiring a build step. The verb 'deploy' combined with specific resource and conditions makes purpose 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 (Agency Plan websites, no build step), when not to use (node-static requiring build step), and provides the alternative tool. It also warns about destructive overwrite and the need for user confirmation, giving clear usage boundaries.

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