deploy_mod

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It explicitly mentions the copy operation, alerting the agent to a write action, but it does not disclose whether the copy overwrites existing files or if any prerequisites (e.g., a successful build) are required. This is a basic but not fully transparent behavior description.

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 a single, efficient sentence that conveys both the build and copy actions. Every word earns its place, with no wasted text.

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?

The tool is fairly simple, and the description covers its main action, but it lacks context about potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing DLLs) and prerequisites. Since an output schema exists, return values are covered elsewhere, but behavioral completeness would benefit from additional detail.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not mention either parameter. It gives no hint that project_path is the project directory or that configuration controls the build configuration, leaving the agent to guess from the schema alone.

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's function: building and explicitly copying the mod DLL into the Mods directory. It uses specific verbs (build, copy) and a resource (primary mod DLL), distinguishing it from siblings like build_mod, which likely only builds without deploying.

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 implies when to use this tool (for deploying the mod after building), but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like build_mod or state when not to use it. The intended context is inferred rather than directly addressed.

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