ecp_apps_deploy_step

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses that install/build run in the background and cannot show output, that configure returns no output, and that start/stop/restart/remove return a real result. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema, though it omits details like side effects or error handling.

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 organized by action groups and front-loads the critical distinction between synchronous supervisor actions and background commands. Each sentence adds information, with no fluff. It's slightly long but structured effectively.

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 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and 10 parameters, the description is incomplete. It neither explains all parameters nor describes expected return values for start/stop/restart/remove (only 'real result'), nor error behavior. The guidance to check tail logs is useful but insufficient for a tool with this complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the meaning of action, app_root_directory, install_command, build_command, and stack_version, but leaves app_id, app_name, deploy_type, env_file_path, and start_command undocumented. The partial coverage is helpful but does not fully resolve the 10-parameter tool's semantics.

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 runs one step of an app's deploy lifecycle and enumerates the action values with their specific behavior (start/stop/restart/remove manage supervisor process; install/build run background commands; configure pins asdf version). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ecp_supervisor_* by framing them as lifecycle steps, though it never explicitly names alternatives.

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 some contextual guidance for install/build (cannot see output, use tail logs) and notes configure returns no output, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ecp_supervisor_start_process for start/stop/restart/remove. No condition or exclusion logic is provided to guide tool selection, so the agent is left to infer.

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