Deploy by USB or automatic Wi-Fi

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

Without annotations, the description discloses the full workflow for both modes: building, installing, and for wifi-switch the multi-step process including network switch and restore. It does not cover failure handling or side effects like overwriting, but overall is 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 concise (two sentences) and front-loaded with the primary purpose, but could benefit from a more structured format (e.g., bullets) for readability. No wasted words.

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 complexity (12 parameters, no output schema), the description provides high-level workflow context but lacks detail on parameter interactions and expected outcomes. Schema descriptions compensate for parameter details, but completeness is moderate.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context by explaining the role of the 'connection' parameter in the workflows, but does not elaborate on other parameters beyond schema descriptions.

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 it is the 'preferred high-level deployment entry point' and specifies two distinct modes (USB and Wi-Fi switch), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like deploy, build_and_deploy, and wifi_deploy_start.

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 indicates when to use each connection mode (USB for physical connection, wifi-switch for automated network hopping) but does not explicitly mention when to avoid this tool in favor of alternatives, though it implies it is the preferred entry point.

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