deploy_all

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

Discloses that each step is skipped if its flag is false and that it stops immediately on failure, reporting which step failed. However, it does not mention side effects like state changes to projects or hardware, nor does it clarify if the process is idempotent. With no annotations, this is adequate but not thorough.

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?

Two sentences: first lists steps in order, second adds failure handling. No wasted words, front-loaded with action sequence.

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 tool with 13 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the high-level pipeline and failure behavior. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., having a selected project) or the return value format, but those are partially covered by schema. Adequate but could be more complete.

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 3 is appropriate. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema; it summarizes the overall flow but no extra semantics for individual parameters.

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 lists the exact sequence of steps in the pipeline (compile, download to PLC, update VISUDesigner stations, optionally download visu) and clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools that perform individual steps.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'after making CLASS 2 or VISUDesigner changes to push everything to the target hardware.' Does not explicitly name alternatives for when not to use, but the sibling list implies granular tools exist for single steps.

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