Deploy static site archive

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

Annotations already set destructiveHint=true, but the description adds concrete behavioral context: 'overwrites the website's existing contents and cannot be undone'. It also discloses the no-build-step limitation, going beyond the annotation to tell the agent exactly what will be affected.

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?

Content is mostly efficient and front-loaded with the warning. However, the first sentence and the third paragraph repeat the same core statement ('Deploy a static application from an archive file'), introducing minor redundancy.

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?

The description covers what the tool does, destructive risk, target site type, and routing to alternatives for other app types. It is slightly incomplete in that it does not describe expected success/failure responses or archive format constraints, but for a three-parameter tool without an output schema this is a strong definition.

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 documents each parameter. The description adds some context for archive_path by saying the archive has been 'uploaded to the website's directory', but it adds little for domain and username, and 'username parameter' in the schema remains uninformative. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Deploy a static application from an archive file.' Scoping to static sites and naming Node.js/WordPress alternatives differentiates it from sibling deploy/import tools. The warning reinforces that this is the overwriting archive-deploy endpoint.

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?

Explicitly states 'This only works for static sites' and directs Node.js and WordPress users to sibling tools like 'Create NodeJS build from archive', 'Start Node.js build', and 'Import WordPress website'. The warning to verify before calling also serves as an explicit precondition.

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