hosting_deployStaticWebsite

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the archive is extracted and deployed without build steps, and that username is auto-resolved. However, it does not cover failure modes, idempotency, or whether existing files are overwritten, which would enhance transparency.

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, then provides usage guidelines and parameter details. Every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers key aspects: purpose, usage, parameter behavior. It lacks information about return values or potential side effects, but for a deployment tool, it is reasonably complete.

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%, baseline is 3. The description adds significant value beyond schema by explaining that archivePath can be a directory (tool will create archive with specific naming pattern) and naming convention details. This extra context aids correct usage.

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 'Deploy a static website from an archive file to a hosting server' with specific verb, resource, and method. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by noting that this tool is for static sites with no build process, while hosting_deployJsApplication should be used for sites requiring a build.

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 (static websites, no build process) and when not to (if package.json or build command exists, use hosting_deployJsApplication). It also clarifies that the archive must contain pre-built static files, giving clear prerequisites.

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