hosting_startNode_jsBuildV1

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: it prominently warns that success overwrites existing website contents and cannot be undone, and it indicates asynchronous behavior by mentioning the returned build uuid for polling. It does not cover permissions or rate limits, but the destructive warning is the most critical disclosure.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: purpose, destructive warning, required parameter constraints, prerequisite workflow, and follow-up polling are each covered in concise, purposeful sentences. No filler or redundant restatement of the schema.

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 complex 11-parameter, no-output-schema tool with no annotations, the description covers the key operational context: prerequisites, required source configuration, destructive consequences, and how to use the returned uuid. It could add error-case or permission context, but the essential calling workflow is 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful constraints beyond the schema by stating that source_type must be 'archive' and that source_options.archive_path must point to an existing archive relative to the document root, which is essential for correct invocation.

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 a specific action — 'Start a Node.js build process' — and scopes it to files already present on the website's file storage. It also distinguishes this from related endpoints by referencing the separate settings-detection and log-retrieval tools.

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 gives explicit workflow guidance: use the Generate Upload URL endpoint first, require source_type=archive, point archive_path to an existing file, and optionally call the settings-detection endpoint beforehand. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative deploy/build tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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