deploy_start

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is conveyed structurally. The description adds essentially nothing beyond that - no note that deployment is long-running, async, returns a deploy id, or modifies the target org's live metadata.

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?

One compact sentence with no filler and the core action front-loaded. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity contributes to the gaps noted elsewhere rather than being a stylistic flaw.

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 destructive, open-world, non-idempotent deploy operation with no output schema, the description omits essential context: authentication/default-org requirement, asynchronous/long-running behavior, and what happens to existing org metadata. An agent could invoke it but with meaningful blind spots.

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 single top-level parameter is a nested object whose inner properties carry their own detailed schema descriptions (tests, dryRun, manifest, testLevel, sourceDirectory, etc.). The description only alludes to 'test execution options' and adds no semantics of its own, so it neither compensates for nor enhances the schema - baseline 3 for a rich nested schema.

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 gives a specific verb (Deploy) and resource (metadata to a Salesforce org), which is clear at a glance. It does not distinguish itself from adjacent siblings such as package_install or run_apex_tests, 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like package_install, run_apex_tests, or execute_anonymous_apex, and no prerequisites (e.g., needing an authenticated/default org) are stated. 'With test execution options' hints at the testLevel/tests parameters but not when to pick them.

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