hosting_deployJsApplication

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

Discloses that the build process is triggered automatically on the server after upload, and mentions post-deployment status tracking. Since no annotations exist, the description carries the full burden and does so adequately, though it could state any potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing deployments).

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 with clear flow: action, constraints, post-deployment step. It is concise but could benefit from structured bullet points for the constraints.

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 no output schema, the description explains the overall process (build triggered, status tracking). It references a sibling tool for status, providing enough context for the agent to understand the workflow.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the archive content constraints already in the schema but adds no new parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides.

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) and resource (JavaScript application from archive to hosting server). It distinguishes from sibling tools like hosting_deployStaticWebsite and hosting_deployWordpressPlugin by specifying the application type.

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?

Provides explicit instructions on archive content (source files only, skip node_modules, .gitignore) and directs to use hosting_listJsDeployments for status tracking. However, it doesn't compare with alternatives or state when not to use.

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