The Deployer

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

Goes beyond the annotations by disclosing that secrets are removed, that lines arrive newest-last, that output mixes build and app logs, and that an API key is required. Those are real behavioral facts the readOnly/idempotent hints do not convey.

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?

Five short sentences, each earning its place, with the core purpose front-loaded. Slightly fragmented (e.g., 'Changes nothing. Needs an API key.') but no waste.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains what the returned lines represent and their ordering. Auth need and redaction are covered, leaving little an agent would need to ask before calling.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description only restates errors_only and the newest-last ordering, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Shows the log of a project's latest deployment, or of a given deployment') with scope. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like status, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

It clarifies the two selection modes (latest vs. a given deployment) and when to use errors_only, but offers no explicit when-not guidance and never names an alternative sibling such as status.

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

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, readOnly=false, openWorld=false, and idempotent=false. The description adds important operational context beyond annotations: it changes a live app, requires user confirmation, takes a few minutes, needs an API key, and should be followed with status or logs. 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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then adds safety, scope, timing, and follow-up guidance in compact sentences. Every sentence earns its place and none repeat structured fields unnecessarily.

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 live-app operation with no output schema, the description covers impact, user confirmation, scope restrictions, duration, auth needs, and recommended follow-up. It is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly alongside its annotations.

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 single optional project parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description does not add syntax, format, or selection detail beyond what the schema already provides, 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?

States a specific verb and resource: redeploy puts the latest code on a live project's branch online by pulling and restarting the app. It clearly distinguishes this from planning and follow-up tools by noting that status or logs should be used after, and that a first deployment happens in the app rather than through this tool.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: only for an already-live project, not for a first deployment, which starts in the app. It also says to confirm with the user first, follow with status or logs, and notes the API key requirement.

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