hosting_createNodeJSBuildFromArchiveV1

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the archive is uploaded to file storage, build settings are auto-detected, the build starts automatically, max size 50MB, override fields take precedence, and returned uuid can poll progress. It does not cover error handling or concurrency, but covers key behaviors adequately.

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 well-structured with a clear first sentence, followed by bullet-like explanations, a practical example, and a note on returned value. It is appropriately sized without redundancy, though a slightly more compact presentation could be possible.

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 (10 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the main points: purpose, archive size limit, auto-detection, overrides, example, and follow-up polling. It lacks details on error handling or failure behavior, but is otherwise complete for an initiate-build tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining that 'Optional override fields take precedence over auto-detected values' and provides an example of excluding directories to keep archive size small, adding context beyond the schema descriptions.

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 action: 'Upload a project archive, auto-detect build settings, and immediately start a Node.js build.' It specifies the resource (project archive for Node.js) and distinguishes itself as 'the recommended single-step approach for deploying a Node.js application.' This differentiates it from sibling tools like hosting_deployJsApplication and hosting_deployStaticWebsite.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('recommended single-step approach for deploying a Node.js application'), what to exclude (node_modules, build output directories), and gives a zip example. It does not explicitly list when not to use it or alternatives, but the context is clear from sibling tool names.

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