Create Node.js Build from Archive

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits but only states the action 'create.' It does not mention whether the build is asynchronous, what side effects occur (e.g., restart), or how to monitor progress. This is a significant gap for a creation 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?

The description is a single, direct sentence that states the action and source without wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded and 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 create operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It omits essential context such as how the archive is uploaded, what the build process entails, expected outcomes, and follow-up actions (e.g., checking build logs or listing builds).

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%, providing descriptions for 'domain' and 'username.' The description adds no additional meaning about how these parameters relate to the archive or the build process, so it earns the baseline score without compensating for any gaps.

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 verb 'create' with the resource 'Node.js build' and the source 'from an uploaded archive,' making the action specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like hosting_nodejs_builds_list (list) and hosting_deploy_js_app (deploy).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., hosting_deploy_js_app), no prerequisites (e.g., how to upload the archive), and no context about typical use cases. Users are left without information to decide correctly.

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