cf_deploy_workflow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the ordered sequence of operations (push, bind, restart), which is real behavioral information beyond the schema. However, it says nothing about permissions required, whether the steps are atomic or partial failures leave the app in an inconsistent state, or whether the restart is conditional.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the composite action with zero filler. It is efficient, though the brevity contributes to the coverage gaps noted elsewhere.

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 multi-step mutation tool with six parameters including a nested env object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is thin. It omits ordering constraints, failure semantics, and prerequisite state, leaving the agent without enough context to call it confidently in edge cases.

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 100%, so each of the six parameters is already documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter interactions (e.g., how 'services' relates to 'appName', or the effect of 'instances'/'memory' on the push step), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific composite verb sequence — push app, bind services, restart — so the agent knows exactly which operational steps it performs. It does not, however, distinguish itself from simply chaining the sibling tools cf_push, cf_bind_service, and cf_restart, which is the key selection question for a composite tool.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this composite workflow rather than the individual siblings (cf_push, cf_bind_service, cf_restart) that it wraps, nor any prerequisites such as being logged in (cf_login) or targeted (cf_target). The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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