deploy_ea

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states 'Copy ... into Experts/' but does not mention whether overwrites occur, if path validation happens, or if any side effects (e.g., terminal restart) exist. The brief description fails to provide sufficient behavioral context for safe invocation.

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 concise: two sentences plus two argument bullets. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the action verb ('Copy') is front-loaded. There is no extraneous information, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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 tool's simplicity (copy file to Experts/), the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits return behavior (no output schema) and does not explain what happens on success/failure. For full context, the agent may need field notes or example usage. It meets the basics but leaves gaps.

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 meaning to parameters beyond the raw schema: 'source_ex' is identified as the path to a compiled .ex4/.ex5 file, and 'name' as an optional rename target. However, it lacks details like path formats (absolute vs relative) or behavior when 'name' conflicts. With 0% schema description coverage, this is adequate but not outstanding.

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 tool copies compiled .ex4/.ex5 binaries into the Experts/ directory, specifying the verb (copy), resource (binary), and destination. While it distinguishes from sibling tools like 'compile' and 'compile_and_deploy', it could be more explicit about its role compared to 'install_include' or other deployment-related tools.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'compile_and_deploy' or prerequisites (e.g., requiring a compiled binary). It only lists arguments without context, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name and sibling list.

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