deploy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full safety burden and does so well: it discloses automatic server-side backups of overwritten files, full undo via restore, that server files are never deleted, and a staleness guard against a changed plan. It omits permissions/auth requirements and any indication of the return/confirmation format, which keeps it out of the top band.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the safety guarantees, then the blocking precondition. Every sentence carries distinct, relevant information with no 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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers backup, rollback, deletion behavior, and staleness refusal. The main remaining gap is what a successful deploy returns (confirmation/result shape), which is left entirely implicit.

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 site, planId, and localDir are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the planId's origin ('the previewed plan') but adds no format, constraint, or default detail beyond the structured fields; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Upload the previewed plan') and implicitly scopes it apart from preview_deploy (which produces the plan) and restore (which undoes it). An agent can identify this as the commit step of a preview/commit workflow without opening the schema.

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?

Establishes the prerequisite ('the previewed plan' from preview_deploy) and a hard precondition ('Refuses if the plan changed since preview_deploy'), and points to restore as the rollback path. It stops short of an explicit 'use X instead of Y' routing statement, but the workflow context is clear.

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