Deploy static website

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

Annotations already flag this as a write/destructive operation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), so the description does not need to re-establish that. It adds meaningful behavioral detail: uploads via TUS, extracts and deploys the archive directly without build steps, uses internal credentials, and auto-resolves the username from the domain. It could explicitly mention that a deployment may overwrite existing site content, but that is largely implied by destructiveHint.

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 longer than average, but every sentence earns its place: core purpose, static-only constraint, alternative routing, upload behavior, internal-credential warning, and username auto-resolution. Information is front-loaded, with the essential purpose and constraint appearing before procedural details.

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 prerequisites, alternative routing, destructive/write behavior, internal upload flow, and archive content requirements—enough for a competent agent to invoke the tool correctly. The primary gap is the unaddressed relationship with hosting_deployStaticSiteArchiveV1, which could leave tool selection ambiguous. The lack of an output schema is not penalized.

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?

The input schema covers all three parameters at 100%, so the baseline is met. The description adds value by emphasizing that the archive must contain pre-built static files ready to be served, reinforcing archivePath semantics beyond the schema's path and format details. No additional parameter clarification is necessary.

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 operation—deploy a static website from an archive to a hosting server—and clearly narrows scope to static, no-build sites. It also explicitly contrasts itself with hosting_deployJsApplication. However, the near-identically named sibling hosting_deployStaticSiteArchiveV1 is never addressed, so an agent comparing the two has no disambiguation.

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?

Strong when-to-use guidance is present: only static sites without a build process; if package.json or a build command is present, use hosting_deployJsApplication instead. It also warns against calling a separate upload-url endpoint, which is useful. The main gap is that it does not explain the relationship with hosting_deployStaticSiteArchiveV1, leaving some selection ambiguity.

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