edict_deploy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the pipeline steps but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what happens after deployment (e.g., does it activate immediately?). For a deployment tool with significant implications, this leaves major gaps.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the purpose and pipeline, the second specifies targets and their outputs. Every word earns its place with zero wasted text, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 complex deployment tool with 3 parameters (including nested objects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (only hints at outputs for targets), doesn't cover error conditions, permissions, or side effects, and leaves the agent guessing about the behavioral impact despite the tool's likely significant consequences.

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 the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds some value by clarifying the target options and their outputs ('wasm_binary' returns WASM + metadata, 'cloudflare' generates Worker bundle), but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions for 'ast' or 'config'.

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 specific action ('Deploy an Edict program to a target') and the full pipeline sequence ('validate → check → compile then packages'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like edict_check, edict_compile, or edict_package which handle individual pipeline steps rather than the complete deployment flow.

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 provides clear context about when to use this tool by specifying the deployment targets ('wasm_binary' and 'cloudflare') and what each target produces. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives among the many sibling tools, such as using edict_package for packaging without deployment.

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