EdgeOne Pages MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return values (deployment URL and project metadata), which is helpful, but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify whether this is a destructive operation (e.g., overwrites existing deployments), authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. For a deployment tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by return values. Every word earns its place with zero waste or redundancy. It's appropriately sized for a single-parameter tool.

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 tool's complexity (deployment operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and return values but misses behavioral context like side effects or error handling. The 100% schema coverage helps, but for a mutation tool without annotations, more completeness would be expected.

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 the single parameter 'builtFolderPath' with its description. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't clarify format expectations like supported file types or size limits). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Deploy'), the resource ('a built frontend directory (or zip file)'), and the target ('to EdgeOne Pages'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'deploy_html' by specifying it handles directories/zip files rather than HTML content. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling, keeping it at 4 instead of 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'deploy_html' or other alternatives. It mentions the resource type (directory/zip) but doesn't explain when this is preferred over HTML deployment or other deployment methods. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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