Deploy app

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. It does state that 'local' builds and serves persistently and that cloud providers publish to a public URL, and it notes free tiers and custom domain configuration. However, it omits other critical behaviors such as authentication requirements, whether it overwrites existing deployments, and what the return value (e.g., a URL) looks like. Given the absence of annotations, this is only partially transparent.

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 superfluous words. It leads with the action and then concisely details the main modes. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded for quick understanding.

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 tool with two required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core behavior but remains incomplete. It lacks details on prerequisites (e.g., provider CLI installed), the result of deployment (e.g., a pa URL), and potential side effects. While adequate for a basic agent, it does not provide a full operational picture.

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 schema covers only 50% of parameters with descriptions, and the provider description is just an enum repetition. The description text does not add any semantic value to the 'app' parameter (what it refers to) or elaborate on the provider choices beyond the schema. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate, but it does not.

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 action ('Deploy the app') and immediately distinguishes between local deployment and public hosting via three named providers. It is unambiguous about what the tool does and separates it from sibling tools like start_preview. The verb and resource are specific, and the provider distinction adds valuable differentiation.

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 explains the difference between 'local' and the cloud providers, giving implicit guidance on when to choose each. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool (e.g., for temporary previews, one might use start_preview). The context is present but not explicit, leaving the agent to infer alternatives.

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