Build website NodeJS assets

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

The description discloses a significant side effect: 'Website contents are overwritten by the build result.' This directly contradicts annotations where destructiveHint is false. Because the description conflicts with the structured metadata, behavioral transparency is severely undermined.

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?

Three short paragraphs deliver purpose, prerequisite, and consequence without wasted words. The most important caveat—overwriting website contents—is included prominently.

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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description covers the workflow, destination, and destructive effect. The lack of an output schema is acceptable here, though details like build status or failure behavior are not disclosed. The main completeness issue is the annotation contradiction already flagged.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds some operational context ('relative path from document root,' 'public_html,' 'file browser first'), but this largely restates what the schema conveys about paths and does not add meaning for website_uid.

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 specific action ('Builds and deploys a Node.js application') and a clear resource ('Agency Plan website') from an already-uploaded archive. This distinguishes it from generic hosting deploy tools, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 clearly frames when to use the tool: after uploading the archive to the file browser, with the relative path provided. It gives a concrete prerequisite and deployment target, but does not explicitly contrast with related deploy tools like deployNodeStaticWebsite or deployJsApplication.

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