deploy_project

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true; the description adds genuinely non-redundant context about how credentials are obtained (Keychain/SecretService/Vault) and that passwords are never exposed. It also partially names destructive consequences ('deleted files', 'failed ... deletes'), but does not warn about server-only file deletion or the confirmation gate, which is the riskiest behavior.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences: action and scope first, security guarantee second, return payload third. No filler and no repetition of schema details.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the JSON report fields, and credentials handling is covered. The main missing element is the two-step confirmation flow and dry-run-first workflow, which are behavioral essentials for a destructive deployment tool, even though the schema hints at them.

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 every parameter is already well documented in the schema (including the important 'yes' confirmation semantics). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so 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 ('Deploy project files to a remote server') plus the credential source and return shape, so an agent immediately knows this is the mutation/deploy operation. It is clearly distinct from the list/show/test siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts with any of them.

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 no when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance: it does not mention that a first call with yes=false returns CONFIRMATION_REQUIRED, nor when to prefer dry_run, remote_scan, or zip_deploy. That confirmation workflow exists only in the schema's 'yes' parameter text, not in the description, and force_branch's policy-override risk is unaddressed.

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