deploy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosureen it does exceptionally: it reveals side effects (creates container, links, builds, waits), the return behavior (live URL or error with build-log tail), and quota semantics (deploy limit usage, failed attempts count, uncapped for Always-On). These are material behaviors beyond the input schema.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, outcome, and quota/entitlement caveat. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded, and there is no redundant or vague wording.

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 (connected repo), process, wait behavior, success/failure response shape, and resource consumption. Since no output schema exists, explaining the return payload is necessary and done well. The schema handles parameter-specific edge cases like upgrade links and fallback prohibition.

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 every parameter in detail. The description adds process-level context (e.g., that building happens and result is awaited) but does not add per-parameter meaning; 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?

The description opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Deploy a connected GitHub repo to SnapDeploy.' It outlines the full operation (creates container, links repo, builds, waits), clearly distinguishing this high-level action from sibling tools like list_apps, get_status, or start_container.

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?

Clear context is provided: this tool is for deploying a connected repo incl. container creation, linking, building, and waiting. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, so it misses the 'explicit exclusions/alternatives' bar, but the intended usage is unambiguous.

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