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 clearly explains the tool's behavior: explicit replace vs patch semantics, CAS for all bytes, stopping before upload on warnings, and return value structure. It also notes that direct `/functions/v1/:name` remains API-key protected. However, it does not cover authorization requirements or rate limits, and some behaviors (like failure modes) are implied but not explicit. Still, the disclosure is thorough.

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 dense but well-structured, starting with the purpose and then listing capabilities. Each sentence adds detail, though some sections (like the route explanation) could be more concise. Given the tool's complexity, the length is justified, and the format is front-loaded with the core concept.

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?

Considering the tool's complexity, lack of output schema, and moderate schema coverage, the description does a good job covering return values, warning behavior, and core use cases. It mentions edge cases like i18n clear vs carry forward, and the distinction between explicit and implicit site modes. However, it could better explain the interplay between subdomains and routing. Overall, it is fairly complete.

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?

The schema description coverage is 69%, meaning the schema already documents many parameters. The description adds context by explaining the purpose of key parameters like `site.public_paths` and `routes.replace` with examples. However, it does not describe every parameter or provide exhaustive detail for complex nested structures. The baseline for moderate coverage is 3, and the description adds some value but not enough to raise the score.

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 defines the tool as a 'Unified apply primitive' and lists the specific resources it handles (database, secrets, functions, site, subdomains, routes). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like deploy_function or deploy_site, which are more specialized. The verb 'deploy' combined with the detailed scope leaves no ambiguity.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as recommending `site.public_paths` for ordinary clean static URLs and noting that secret values must be set beforehand with `set_secret`. It also warns about the tool stopping before upload on warnings unless specific flags are used. However, it does not explicitly say when to use a sibling tool like `deploy_function`, so the guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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