html_deploy

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

Annotations indicate this is not read-only and not idempotent, which the description aligns with by implying a deployment action. The description adds value by specifying that it returns 'a default access URL,' providing context on output behavior. However, it lacks details on side effects, error handling, or rate limits, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality and outcome. It's front-loaded with the main action and result, with no redundant or verbose language, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool's moderate complexity (deployment action with 2 parameters) and lack of output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and result but omits details on error cases, dependencies, or integration with sibling tools. With annotations providing some safety context, it meets a baseline level of completeness but could be more informative.

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%, with clear documentation for both parameters ('name' and 'html'). The description doesn't add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the relationship between parameters or usage nuances. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema adequately covers parameter information.

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 the action ('deploy an HTML page') and target resource ('ESA Edge Routine (ER)'), specifying what the tool does. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'routine_code_deploy' or 'routine_create', which appear related to similar deployment or routine management functions, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'routine_code_deploy' and 'routine_create' that likely handle similar tasks, there's no indication of prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions. The phrase 'quickly deploy' implies a simple use case but offers no concrete decision criteria.

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