hosting_deployStaticSiteArchiveV1

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and clearly discloses that the endpoint overwrites existing website contents and cannot be undone, and that archives must already be uploaded. This is a strong warning for an irreversible action.

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 warning and alternative guidance are valuable, but the opening sentence and the 'This endpoint allows you...' sentence are somewhat redundant. Still, the structure is front-loaded and not bloated.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description provides all critical context: prerequisites (uploaded archive, static site), destructive consequence, and alternative tools for other app types. This is complete enough for safe selection and invocation.

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?

Input schema already covers all parameters at 100% and gives a relative-path description for archive_path. The description adds useful context that the archive must already be uploaded to the website's directory and only applies to static sites, going beyond bare schema meaning.

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?

Description uses specific verb 'Deploy' with resource 'static application from an archive file' and states the destructive overwrite behavior. It clearly distinguishes itself from Node.js and WordPress deployment alternatives.

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?

Explicitly restricts to static sites with no build step and gives named alternatives for Node.js (Create NodeJS build from archive / Start Node.js build) and WordPress (Import WordPress website), plus a warning to verify before invoking because contents are overwritten.

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