deploy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a write operation ('deploy') but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether it's destructive, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. The mention of 'force rebuild' in the schema hints at potential side effects, but the description doesn't elaborate.

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 concise sentences that efficiently state the tool's purpose and high-level usage. It's front-loaded with the core action and avoids unnecessary details, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from context.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context like what 'deploy' entails (e.g., rollout strategy, downtime), expected outcomes, error handling, or how it differs from similar tools like update-application, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'tag or UUID' and the purpose of deployment, but doesn't explain parameter interactions (e.g., tag vs. uuid, when force is needed) beyond what the schema provides.

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') and target ('application or service'), and specifies the mechanism ('using a tag or UUID') and purpose ('deploy new versions or updates'). It distinguishes from siblings like restart/start/stop by focusing on deployment rather than lifecycle management, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with update-application.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like update-application or restart-application. It mentions deploying 'new versions or updates' but doesn't clarify when deployment is preferred over updating, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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