hosting_deployStaticWebsite

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It explains that the archive is extracted and deployed directly without build steps, and that the username is auto-resolved. However, it could be more transparent about prerequisites (e.g., domain must exist, hosting account needed) and potential failure scenarios. Still, it adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 concise and well-structured. It front-loads the purpose, uses clear language, and includes important caveats in all caps. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary fluff.

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 tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It covers when to use, how to use, and parameter nuances. However, it does not mention what happens after deployment (e.g., URL or status) or any required domain ownership verification. Still, it is sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by detailing how to handle a directory path for the archivePath parameter, including a specific naming pattern. The other parameters are adequately described in the schema and repeated in the description. This extra guidance justifies a 4.

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 tool's purpose: 'Deploy a static website from an archive file to a hosting server.' It specifies that it works only for static websites with no build process, and distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'hosting_deployJsApplication' which handles JS applications with build steps.

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 this tool ('This tool only works for static websites with no build process') and provides a clear alternative: 'If the website has a package.json file or requires a build command, use hosting_deployJsApplication instead.' It also gives archive format requirements and notes that the username is automatically resolved from the domain.

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