ubuntu_website_deployment

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to mention that the tool may overwrite remote files, run with sudo, require an active connection, or that 'restore' modifies existing site state. It also does not explain the backup behavior or implications of the 'createBackup' default. This is a significant transparency gap for a tool with mutating actions.

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 sentence with no fluff, but it is under-specified for a tool with 7 parameters and 3 distinct actions. It is concise in the sense of being short, but it omits required function details, so it is not appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 the tool's complexity (7 parameters, 3 actions, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It only mentions deploy and backup, omits restore, connection requirements, default paths, and behavior. An agent would have to rely on parameter descriptions alone to understand how to use this tool effectively.

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 every parameter already has a description. The tool description adds minimal extra meaning by mentioning 'deploy' and 'backups', which loosely maps to the action and createBackup parameters, but it does not clarify the meaning of 'restore' or the roles of path parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Deploy website files and create backups on Ubuntu'. This differentiates it from generic SSH file tools, though it omits the 'restore' action available in the schema. The name and description together make the tool's primary purpose evident.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool vs. alternatives like ssh_upload_file, ssh_exec, or other ubuntu_* tools. There are no prerequisites mentioned (e.g., active SSH connection) or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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