create_deployment

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing side effects. It states files are copied, but does not mention whether existing files in the output directory are overwritten, whether the directory is created if missing, or what the tool returns after completion. This is a meaningful gap for a mutating operation.

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, front-loaded sentence that names the action, the file types, and the destination without any filler. Every word carries meaning, and no irrelevant details are included.

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 tool is simple (one required parameter, no output schema), so the description covers the core action, but it leaves out important execution context such as prerequisites, whether the output directory is prepared automatically, and what a successful run looks like. An agent could call it correctly but may not understand the full impact or preconditions.

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 parameter semantics are already fully documented by outputDir's description. The tool description adds no new information about the parameter itself, matching the baseline of 3 for high schema 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 uses a specific verb phrase ('Batch copy') and clearly identifies the resource ('all necessary server files (AMX, Plugins, CFG)') and the destination ('a distribution folder'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings such as compile_and_load_pawn or manage_server, which do different things.

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 implies the tool is for creating a deployment package by copying files, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any prerequisites. There is no direct 'when to use' or 'when not to use' guidance, only an implied context.

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