update_website_from_url

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discharges most of it: it discloses the destructive consequence of the default ('after upload, files the archive does not contain are deleted (dashboard-authored redirect pages are kept)'), the 150MB size cap, and the public-URL requirement. Auth/permission requirements and true idempotency are not stated.

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?

Front-loaded purpose sentence, then rationale, then structured Args/Returns. Slightly redundant in restating the sync default, but every section earns its place and nothing is padded.

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?

A destructive, no-annotation, no-output-schema mutation tool is mostly covered: destructive semantics, size limit, param meanings, and a pointer for the return shape ('Same shape as update_website'). Missing only auth/permission and error-behavior context.

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 0%, yet the Args block documents all four parameters with meaningful semantics: website accepts id, slug, or live URL; source_url must be a public http(s) URL of a .zip or a single .html ≤150MB; sync's default and effect are explained. This fully compensates for the bare schema.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Redeploy an existing site from a URL') with the accepted source formats in parentheses, and explicitly positions itself as 'the URL form of update_website', distinguishing it from that sibling and from publish_website_from_url.

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?

Gives clear context ('for the hosted endpoint or any agent that has the build as a downloadable archive') and a conditional on the key flag: sync default true, pass sync=false to upsert only. It does not spell out when to prefer the sibling update_website instead, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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