native_deploy

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'optional backup,' which hints at file overwriting, but it does not explicitly state that existing files may be overwritten, what happens without backup, or any permission/risk implications. The schema's backup description adds detail but is not part of the tool description.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the core action and the optional backup behavior in ten words, matching the standard of high-concision examples.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too sparse. It does not mention that the sidecar kit must already exist or be listed, what 'native sidecar' means, or the relationship to sibling deployment tools. The lack of behavioral and usage context leaves the agent under-informed for correct invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it only restates the backup option in general terms. The schema already documents all parameter purposes thoroughly, so the description does not need to compensate.

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 ('Copy'), the resource ('a native sidecar kit'), and the destination ('into a game directory'), making it a specific verb+resource pair. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like native_undeploy and native_run by the nature of the action, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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. It does not mention that native_undeploy should be used for removal or that native_run is for execution after deployment. There is no context about prerequisites or conditions for use.

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