deploy_app

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It discloses that it writes to a gitignored dev sandbox, creates a sidecar file, lints using repo config, and requires the class to implement z2ui5_if_app. This gives the agent essential behavioral context for a file-writing operation.

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 three-sentence description is efficient, covering purpose, side effects, prerequisites, and follow-up actions without redundancy. A minor typo 'ababGit' does not detract from overall clarity.

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?

The description is complete for a deploy tool: it specifies the target directory, the linting step, the required interface, and the post-deploy build/run sequence. It lacks error-handling details but given the tool's straightforward nature, this is sufficient.

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%, but the description adds value by explaining the lint parameter's default and trade-off, and by stating the interface prerequisite for class_name. This goes beyond the schema's basic parameter types and provides decision-relevant guidance.

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 'Deploy an abap2UI5 app' and details the concrete actions: writing a .clas.abap file with a sidecar into a specific directory and linting. It distinguishes from sibling tools by referencing build_backend and run_app as subsequent steps, making the deploy scope explicit.

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?

It provides workflow guidance, explicitly stating to run build_backend and run_app after deployment, and explains the lint:false flag to skip linting. While it doesn't explicitly list exclusions, it clearly defines where this tool fits in the deployment pipeline compared to siblings.

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