Deploy node-static website

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

Beyond destructiveHint=true, the description warns that the operation 'overwrites the website's existing contents and cannot be undone' and instructs always confirming with the user. It also discloses the synchronous nature of the operation, the internal generation of upload credentials, and the end-to-end behavior, giving the agent an unusually complete picture of what happens when the tool is invoked.

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 long but dense, and each sentence earns its place: purpose, destructive warning, applicability, process, synchronous guarantee, and exclusions. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and warning. The only slight knock is that it could be tightened without losing information, though no sentence is filler.

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 destructive, synchronous deployment tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it deploys, the destructive side effect, the build-and-deploy flow, the synchronous wait semantics, the parameter nuances, and the explicit alternative. There is no material gap between what structured data provides and what an agent needs to call the tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real value: it specifies accepted archive formats for archivePath, gives the exact naming pattern for creating an archive from a directory, and explains that removeArchive defaults to true. It also clarifies that the website UID is automatically derived from the domain, which removes potential confusion about an extra parameter.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Deploy a node-static Agency Plan (h5g) website from an archive file.' It further distinguishes the target by defining node-static as 'a Node.js-built static site that requires a build step or a plain simple static site,' and it explicitly contrasts with the PHP alternative. An agent can tell exactly which operation this is without opening a schema.

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 says when to use it ('Use this for Agency Plan websites of type node-static'), names the alternative ('For plain PHP applications... use agencyHosting_deployPhpApplication instead'), and gives explicit negative guidance ('do not call a separate upload-url endpoint or upload the archive yourself'). It also provides conditional instructions for handling a directory path, so an agent knows exactly what to do in a common edge case.

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