sf_deploy_metadata

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 does not state that deployment is a write/destructive operation, whether it waits for completion, handles conflicts, or requires confirmation. The agent is unaware of side effects or prerequisites.

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 sentence with no wasted words, clearly front-loading the core purpose. It is appropriately concise for the minimal information it conveys, though this brevity contributes to its overall insufficiency.

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 complex tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is severely inadequate. It omits return values, status monitoring, side effects, preconditions, and relationships to related deployment tools, leaving the agent without essential execution context.

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?

The schema has 9 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description adds no parameter explanations. The phrase 'local project files' hints at directory/sourceDir but does not clarify their semantics, leaving the agent to guess how to fill any of the 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 clearly identifies the action (deploy), the resource (Salesforce metadata), and the source (local project files). This distinguishes it from retrieve/list tools, though it does not explicitly mention the target org or differentiate from the validate tool.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sf_deploy_metadata_validate or sf_get_deploy_status. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context without any exclusion or alternative references.

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