Deploy application

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

Annotations already signal read/write and idempotency, and the description adds a meaningful side effect: 'may run framework migrations defined by that recipe.' It also notes the plan_id prerequisite, which is beyond the structured annotations.

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?

Two tightly worded sentences accomplish a lot: they define the operation, source, mechanism, prerequisite, and a key side effect. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema and informative annotations, the description covers the essential call context: registered app, Git source, pinned recipe, required plan_id, and possible migrations. It could be slightly stronger by pointing to plan_deploy as the source of the plan_id, but the information present is enough for correct invocation in most cases.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by explaining that plan_id must be the current plan and that the app must be registered. However, it never explicitly names or contextualizes the 'name' parameter beyond the schema's field name, leaving some inference required.

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 action: 'Deploy a registered application from Git using its pinned Deployer recipe.' This clearly identifies the verb, resource, and method, and distinguishes it from siblings like plan_deploy or rollback_app.

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 gives useful context: the app must already be registeredicut and the plan_id must be current. It implies this is the execution step after planning, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool.

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