Deploy PHP application

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true), the description discloses the overwrite and irreversibility ('overwrites the website's existing contents and cannot be undone'), requires user confirmation, explains that the operation is synchronous with no async build to poll, and notes that credentials are generated internally. No contradiction with annotations.

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 fairly long but dense and front-loaded with purpose and warning. There is minor repetition around overwriting contents, but each additional sentence (synchronous behavior, credential handling, alternative routing) earns its place given the destructive nature.

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?

Covers what the tool does, how it works, when to use it, what to avoid, and its synchronous completion. With no output schema, the description does not document return values, so an agent must infer success semantics from context, but still has everything needed to invoke it 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 description coverage is 100% and the schema already documents all three parameters with formats and defaults. The description adds workflow context (auto-resolves UID from domain) but no parameter-specific semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Deploy'), identifies the resource (Agency Plan h5g website) and the source type (archive file), and explicitly distinguishes itself from node-static deployments that require a build step. It clearly states the tool's scope: extract-and-serve as-is without a build step.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use this for Agency Plan websites where...') and an explicit alternative ('For node-static websites that require a build step, use agencyHosting_deployNodeStaticWebsite instead'). It also instructs the agent not to call a separate upload-url endpoint, preventing misuse.

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