create_deployment

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 states the action ('Deploy/publish') but doesn't explain what deployment entails (e.g., making the repl publicly accessible, triggering a build, or side effects). It omits critical details like permissions required, whether it's idempotent, or what happens on failure, which is inadequate for a mutation 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 extremely concise at three words, with zero wasted text. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place by directly conveying the tool's purpose without redundancy.

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 action (a mutation with potential side effects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what deployment means in this context, what the output might be, or any behavioral traits, leaving significant gaps for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides. Since schema description coverage is 100% (the 'replId' parameter is documented as optional with default behavior), the baseline score is 3. The description doesn't compensate with additional context like examples or edge cases, but it doesn't need to given the schema's completeness.

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 ('Deploy/publish') and the resource ('a repl'), making the tool's purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'run_repl' (execution) and 'get_deployment' (read), though it doesn't explicitly contrast them. The verb 'deploy/publish' is specific enough for a 4, but not fully differentiated from potential alternatives.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., having a repl ready), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'run_repl' or 'fork_repl'. The description lacks context for decision-making, 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.