deploy

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

Annotations already flag the tool as destructive and non-read-only. The description adds that it pulls new code and brings the service up, which is useful context, but it does not disclose potential side effects like downtime or rollback behavior beyond what annotations imply.

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 a single, well-structured sentence with a dash providing clarity. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero waste.

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 two-parameter deploy tool with output schema and annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It covers the primary action and scoping, though it could mention the default restart behavior or prerequisites for extra completeness.

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%, with both parameters described in detail. The description adds little beyond the schema, only implying the use of 'ref' via 'new code' and 'restart_after' via 'bring it up,' so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 Hermes on the host' and specifies the mechanism 'pull new code and bring it up.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like start/stop/restart by emphasizing code deployment.

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?

Usage is implied rather than explicit. The phrase 'pull new code' suggests using this when updating to a new ref, but it does not state when to prefer deploy over restart or start, nor does it mention exclusions or alternatives.

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