faber_deploy

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 'zero-downtime deployment', which implies availability during the process, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, potential side effects, error handling, or what constitutes success. This leaves significant gaps for a deployment tool.

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 a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 complexity of a deployment operation, the lack of annotations and output schema, and the description's minimal detail, this is incomplete. It fails to address behavioral traits, error conditions, or output expectations, which are crucial for safe and effective tool use in this context.

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 input schema already documents both parameters ('username' and 'server') adequately. The description adds no additional meaning or context about these parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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 ('trigger a zero-downtime deployment') and the resource ('for an app'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'faber_rollback' or 'faber_service_restart', which also involve deployment-related operations.

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 alternatives like 'faber_rollback' for reverting deployments or 'faber_service_restart' for restarting services. It also lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the app must already exist or be in a specific state.

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