Deploy Static Website

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 the important precondition that the archive must contain pre-built files and that no build process occurs. However, it does not mention deployment side effects such as whether existing files are overwritten, if the site becomes immediately live, or any authorization requirements, leaving a transparency gap for a mutation 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 description is three concise sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states the action, the second sets a precondition, and the third provides an alternative for a different use case. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 simple 3-parameter deploy action with no output schema and no annotations, the description is largely complete: it defines the operation, states preconditions, and names the alternative tool. It only lacks explicit side-effect information (e.g., overwriting behavior), but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity and sibling guidance.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds the contextual constraint that the archive must be pre-built, but it does not provide additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already states. It also does not explain archive format or the relationship between username and domain.

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 uses a specific verb ('Deploy'), identifies the resource ('static website'), and lists the content types (HTML/CSS/JS/images). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'hosting_deploy_js_app' by explicitly stating 'No build process' and directing JS apps to that alternative.

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?

It clearly states when to use this tool (pre-built static files) and when not to ('For JS apps with build step, use hosting_deploy_js_app instead'). This explicit alternative guidance is exactly what agents need for tool selection.

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