Deploy JS Application

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that builds run on the server and that status should be checked via a sibling tool, implying an asynchronous deployment. However, it does not mention permissions, side effects, or return values, leaving significant ambiguity for a mutation tool.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and each sentence adds value: purpose, constraints, and status-check guidance. No filler or 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?

The description covers the core workflow (archive source-only, auto-build, status check) but omits key contextual details such as the need for the archive to be pre-uploaded (though in schema) or any asynchronous behavior beyond the status check reference. With no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves gaps for a tool with six parameters.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics, other than implying the archive must contain source files, which relates to archive_path. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 function ('Deploy a JavaScript application from an archive') with a specific verb and resource. It also differentiates from a sibling by recommending hosting_deploy_list_js for status checks, though it does not distinguish from similar deploy/build tools like hosting_nodejs_build_from_archive.

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 context for use: the archive must contain source files only, build runs automatically, and a sibling tool is named for checking status. This gives clear when-to-use guidance but lacks explicit exclusions for alternative deployment methods.

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