dev_deploy_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It merely states the action without mentioning side effects (e.g., whether the deployment is immediate or asynchronous), required permissions, or return behavior. This is insufficient for safe tool selection.

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 sentence, which is concise but overly minimal. It is front-loaded, but the brevity sacrifices necessary detail, making it acceptable but not well-structured for comprehensive understanding.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, and with three parameters including a required projectId, the description is far from complete. It does not explain prerequisites, success criteria, or what the tool returns, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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%, yet the description does not explain any of the three parameters (name, projectId, description). The agent must guess their meaning and required format, which is a critical gap.

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 'Deploy a Lamatic project' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the action and object. It distinguishes from sibling tools like dev_create_project (create) and dev_delete_project (delete). However, it could be slightly more precise about what deployment entails.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as dev_create_project or dev_list_all_deployments. The description lacks context on prerequisites or scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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