Deploy App

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the critical behavioral trait: the tool is gated by a two-step preview/confirmation mechanism, and only the second call actually executes the deployment. It does not warn about production impact or irreversibility, but the safety-critical confirmation flow is clearly disclosed.

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 compact and front-loaded: one sentence states the purpose, and the second paragraph delivers the essential two-step protocol. Every sentence earns its place with zero redundant filler.

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 100% schema coverage, an output schema, and no nested objects, the description plus structured data is largely sufficient. It covers the purpose and the confirmation protocol that ties the tool's behavior together. Minor gaps remain: no routing guidance vs deploy_app_multilang and no explicit note about prerequisites or production-tier side effects.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by sequencing the confirm and confirmation_token parameters into a temporal workflow, explaining how they interact (preview first, then token-based confirmation). This goes slightly beyond what the schema states per-parameter.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Deploy an APK or AAB file to a Play Store track.' This is clear and unambiguous about what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from closely related siblings like deploy_app_multilang or promote_release, so it stops short of a 5.

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 two-step workflow is explicitly explained: call with confirm=False first, show the preview, then call with confirm=True and the confirmation_token after user approval. This is clear, actionable operational guidance. It does not, however, state when NOT to use this tool or name alternatives (e.g., deploy_app_multilang for multi-language notes), so no exclusions are given.

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