deploy

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

The description explicitly discloses that the operation 'Overwrites an existing file of the same name,' which is important destructive behavior beyond the destructiveHint annotation. It also clarifies that the target directory is determined by file extension, adding behavioral detail not present in the annotations.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary behavior and extension routing are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds the critical overwrite warning and the compile_and_deploy alternative efficiently.

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 simple two-parameter API, destructive annotation, and output schema presence, the description covers the essential behavior, the overwrite risk, and the main alternative workflow. It could mention behavior for unsupported extensions, but that is a minor gap.

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 file and name parameters are already well documented. The description adds context about extension-based routing but does not materially extend the parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 action ('Copy'), a precise resource ('compiled EA' or '.mqh header'), and a deterministic destination ('Experts/' vs 'Include/' chosen by extension). This clearly differentiates the core operation from build-only tools like compile and combined build-and-copy tools like compile_and_deploy.

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 explicitly points to compile_and_deploy as the alternative when building and copying are needed together, and the custom name parameter gives useful usage context. It does not discuss other sibling tools like deploy_ea or install_include, but the extension-based routing makes the intended usage fairly unambiguous.

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