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

Annotations do not provide explicit safety hints (all flags false), so the description carries more behavioral burden. It discloses key behaviors: each service gets its own URL, builds run in parallel, env var token replacement, database injection, and polling with app_id. However, it does not explicitly state potential side effects like replacing existing deployments or failure cleanup, which prevents a 5.

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 concise and well-structured, opening with the core purpose, then usage guidance, then key operational details (env wiring, db, parallel builds, polling). Every sentence earns its place without fluff or repetition of schema.

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?

Given the complexity of a multi-service deployment tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers essential aspects: how to connect services, when to enable db, parallel execution, and how to track deployment status. It even references return values (app_id) and the sibling get_app_status for polling, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke 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 coverage is 100%, providing detailed descriptions for db, env, source, port, and type. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema, such as which services typically need a database ('pure frontend doesn't need one') and how to wire services via the exact token format. This enriches the parameter guidance without redundancy.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Deploy several connected services in one go' with a concrete example ('frontend + API'). It also distinguishes from sibling tool deploy_app by explicitly noting the single-repo alternative. The verb 'deploy' and resource 'service group' are specific and 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?

The description gives explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'when the user's project is split across multiple repos that must talk to each other.' It also names the alternative: 'for a single repo use deploy_app.' Additional guidance on database provisioning and polling via get_app_status provides clear usage context.

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