deploy_site_dir

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

Without annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: only uploads missing bytes, skips .git/node_modules/.DS_Store, rejects symlinks, and issues no PUTs on unchanged trees. It does not cover error handling or permissions, but is fairly transparent for a deployment 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 concise at four sentences, front-loading the purpose. It avoids redundancy but could be more structured (e.g., listing constraints clearly). No wasted words.

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 no output schema, the description explains input, process, and constraints. It covers what happens (incremental uploads, file skipping) but omits return value or deployment URL. Still, it is complete enough for a tool with standard output expectations.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions that largely mirror the tool description. The tool description adds little beyond the schema, such as the transport version and pricing context, but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 site from a local directory' and details the process of walking the tree, hashing, and incremental uploads. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like deploy_site and deploy_function by specifying the local directory source and transport mechanism.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs. alternatives. While it implies use for static site deployment from a local path, it lacks guidance on when not to use it or comparisons with other deploy tools like deploy_site.

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