Start Node.js build

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

The description warns that success 'overwrites the website's existing contents and cannot be undone', which is a destructive behavior. However, the annotations declare destructiveHint=false, directly contradicting this warning. This is a serious inconsistency that undermines an agent's ability to gauge the tool's safety.

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 organized into short, purposeful paragraphs: an overview, a critical warning, source requirements, and follow-up workflow. It is longer than strictly necessary, but every section adds operational value and the key destructive warning is front-loaded.

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 an 11-parameter, 9-required tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical preconditions, the destructive consequence, and how to follow up using the returned build UUID. It does not describe the full response shape, but the mention of the UUID and log endpoint gives enough guidance for an agent to proceed.

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 has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents parameters like source_type, source_options, and node_version. The description adds a bit of context by clarifying that source_type must be 'archive' and that archive_path must point to an existing archive file relative to the document root, but this largely overlaps with schema wording.

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 clearly states that this tool starts a Node.js build using files already on the website's file storage, which identifies the action and resource precisely. It names related endpoints like 'Generate Upload URL', 'Get Node.js Build Settings from Archive', and 'Get Node.js Build Logs', helping an agent understand where this tool fits, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling build/deploy tools.

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 provides clear workflow context: upload the archive first via 'Generate Upload URL', optionally detect settings via 'Get Node.js Build Settings from Archive', and use the returned build UUID with 'Get Node.js Build Logs' to poll progress. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance or comparisons to alternatives, but the sequential context is strong enough for correct usage.

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