Deploy app

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that local builds persistently and cloud providers publish via CLI, and mentions free tiers and domain configuration. However, it does not cover side effects, permission requirements, failure modes, idempotency, or what happens to prior deployments—significant gaps for an unannotated 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 two sentences with zero waste: the first states the action, the second details provider semantics. All information is front-loaded and directly relevant, earning every sentence.

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?

It covers the essential purpose and provider options, but misses guidance on when to use deploy versus sibling tools like start_preview or undeploy, and does not mention any post-deployment behavior or return values. Given no annotations and no output schema, the description could reasonably provide more operational context to fully equip an agent.

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 substantial meaning to the provider parameter by explaining the outcome of each enum value (local = persistent build, cloud providers = public URL via CLI) and additional context like free tiers and domain setup. This goes well beyond the schema's simple enum listing. The app parameter is not elaborated, but its meaning is self-evident from the tool's context.

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 deploys an app and distinguishes local vs. cloud providers, making its core purpose specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like start_preview, share_preview, or undeploy, so it lacks a strong sibling distinction.

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?

It explains the provider options (local vs. vercel/netlify/cloudflare) and notes free tiers and custom domain configuration, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like start_preview or undeploy. It does not state any exclusions or conditions that would route an agent to a different tool.

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