Deploy the app

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals that execute=false only generates configs and commands, execute=true executes the deployment, and success marks the project done. It does not detail failure behavior or side effects beyond 'done', but the core behavior is transparent and actionable.

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 concise sentences, each with a distinct purpose: state the action, explain the two execution modes, and note prerequisites/success outcome. No filler words, and the most critical information is front-loaded. The structure is easy to parse.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, this description is largely complete. It covers main behavior, mode differences, prerequisites, and post-conditions. However, it does not describe the return format (even though no output schema exists), nor does it mention failure handling or recovery steps. Given the tool's complexity, a slightly richer description would be ideal, but this is still strong.

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 schema has 50% coverage (appPath and execute have descriptions; target and projectId do not). The description adds meaning by clarifying the execute parameter's role and giving an example of generated files (Dockerfile/compose for docker). While it doesn't elaborate on target or projectId, the enum for target and the phrase 'app root' for appPath provide enough context for correct invocation.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Deploys the finished app.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like run_audit or generate_blueprint by focusing on the deployment step. The two modes (execute=false/true) are introduced immediately, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's core function.

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 provides an explicit prerequisite: 'Only available once the audit has passed.' It also explains when to use the tool with execute=false (generate configs/commands) versus execute=true (actually deploy). While it doesn't name alternatives like get_deploy_options, the guidance is clear enough for an agent to choose this tool for deployment actions.

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