ecp_apps_create_from_git

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns that the clone runs in the background and that the tool returns when the clone starts, not when it finishes, and advises checking ecp_apps_directory_tree afterward. This is important, non-obvious behavior that an agent needs to know.

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, authentication options, and the critical async behavior. The most important caveat is placed at the end but is clearly highlighted, and there is no filler or repetition of schema property names.

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 the key authentication modes and the background-clone behavior, but given the tool's complexity—9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations—it still omits explanations for app_name, app_dir, branch, and deploy_type. It is adequate for a basic call but not fully complete for all valid use cases.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the schema's silence. It explains provider, repo_full_name, repo_url, repo_username, and repo_password, but leaves required parameters like app_name and app_dir, plus branch and deploy_type, unexplained. The added meaning is useful but incomplete for a 9-parameter tool.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Create an app by cloning a git repo.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like ecp_apps_create_from_upload and the broader ecp_apps_* family, so an agent can identify its purpose without opening the schema.

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 clear guidance on the two authentication modes: use provider+repo_full_name with a connected git account, or repo_url with optional credentials for private repos. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over ecp_apps_create_from_upload, but the git-cloning framing makes the primary use case clear.

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