deploy_files

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses side effects (pushes to GitHub, deploys to Vercel), a precondition (requires existing prototype ID), and a resource constraint (parameter size limits). It does not mention what happens on redeploy or failure, but the disclosed traits are significant and not otherwise visible.

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 concise yet information-dense. The core statement is front-loaded, followed by a practical file-size tip and a critical safety check. The IMPORTANT section is warranted and clearly delimits a do-not-proceed condition. No filler words or redundant restatements of the schema.

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 complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description covers purpose, prerequisites, parameter selection tips, and user-confirmation requirements. It does not differentiate from the closely named sibling deploy_prototype, nor describe return values, but the coverage is strong for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by explaining why file_paths should be chosen over files for large payloads, connecting to the ~100KB MCP limit. This goes beyond the schema's static descriptions and helps the agent make correct parameter choices.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Deploy a multi-file Next.js project to VibeSharing.' It further clarifies the workflow ('Pushes files to GitHub, deploys to Vercel'), making it distinct from sibling tools like deploy_prototype or upload_source. The scope is clear and unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'For large files, use file_paths instead of files to read from disk and avoid MCP parameter size limits (~100KB).' It also gives a strong prerequisite and in/out condition: 'Before calling this, use resolve_target to confirm the target prototype with the user. If the user hasn't specified where to deploy, do NOT proceed — ask first.' This is actionable and prevents misuse.

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