git_deploy

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Trigger a git deploy' and notes that confirm is required, without disclosing side effects, irreversibility, permissions, or what the deploy affects. The confirm hint suggests a gated action but is underspecified.

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 tightly written and front-loaded: one clear action sentence plus a compact args list. There is no filler or redundant wording.

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?

For a deployment mutation with no annotations, this is incomplete. It lacks when to use it, what actually happens during deployment, prerequisites, and the exact meaning of confirm. The output schema helps with return values but does not cover operational 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?

The description adds 'Application uuid' and 'confirm: Required,' but the schema marks confirm as optional with a default of false. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate more clearly and accurately; the confirm guidance is ambiguous and potentially misleading.

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 states a specific verb-resource pair, 'Trigger a git deploy,' which is reasonably distinguishable from sibling tools like git_fetch, git_webhook, git_list, and git_get. It doesn't elaborate on what a deploy entails, but the core action is clear.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as git_fetch or git_webhook. No prerequisites, exclusions, or decision criteria are provided.

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