deploy_local_folder

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 deployment action but lacks critical details like required permissions, whether this creates or updates services, potential costs, time estimates, or error handling. 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 extremely concise with two sentences that are front-loaded and waste-free. Every word earns its place by stating the core purpose and key usage condition without redundancy or fluff.

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 this is a deployment tool with no annotations, no output schema, and complex implications (resource creation/modification, cloud costs, permissions), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what happens after deployment, success indicators, or potential side effects, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.

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 all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description only mentions 'absolute folder path' without adding meaningful context beyond what the schema provides for 'folderPath' or other parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 specific action ('Deploy a local folder to Cloud Run') and resource ('local folder'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'deploy_file_contents' or 'deploy_local_files' by specifying 'entire folder content' deployment. This provides precise verb+resource differentiation.

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 includes explicit guidance to 'Use this tool if the entire folder content needs to be deployed,' which helps differentiate from tools handling individual files. However, it doesn't mention when NOT to use it or provide alternatives like 'deploy_file_contents' for partial deployments, leaving some contextual gaps.

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