hosting_deployJsApplication

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 build is automatic, that the archive may be removed after deployment (via parameter), and that the user should check deployment status with another tool. It does not mention authentication or rate limits, but covers key behavioral aspects.

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 moderately sized and front-loaded with purpose. Important guidelines are in bold. There is slight redundancy (archive constraints repeated in parameter description), but each sentence adds value without excessive verbosity.

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 deployment tool with no output schema, the description covers preparation (archive requirements), execution (automatic build), and post-deployment (check status with sibling tool). It is complete for an AI agent to understand the workflow and constraints.

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% with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds value by repeating the archive constraints, listing supported formats, and explaining directory handling ('create archive from it before proceeding'). It clarifies the removeArchive parameter 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 'Deploy', resource 'JavaScript application', and method 'from archive file to hosting server'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like hosting_deployStaticWebsite by specifying 'JavaScript application' and references a sibling tool for post-deployment status.

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 constraints on the archive content (source files only, skip node_modules, exclude .gitignore) and notes the automatic build process. It could be improved by explicitly stating when not to use this tool, but the constraints effectively guide usage.

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