deploy_prototype

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action and a safety precondition. It does not disclose side effects like overwriting existing prototypes, irreversibility, permission requirements, or return behavior. The warning about user confirmation is a guideline, not a transparency disclosure.

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 brief and front-loads the primary action, followed by a crucial usage warning. Every sentence adds value; there is no redundancy or 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?

The tool performs a significant action (deploy + register) with no output schema or annotations, yet the description doesn't explain what happens after successful deployment (e.g., returned URLs, IDs, or how to verify success). It also omits clarification on the update-vs-create behavior for prototype_id, though the schema covers that parameter. The prerequisite guidance is helpful, but the overall context is incomplete for an agent to know how to proceed after invocation.

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%, and the description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond referencing 'code' generically. The schema already documents each parameter well, so this meets the baseline but doesn't exceed it.

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 tool's function with a specific verb ('Deploy') and resource ('code directly to VibeSharing' and 'to Vercel'), and explicitly mentions the combined action of deploying and registering as a prototype. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like register_prototype and deploy_files.

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 explicit usage guidance by requiring resolve_target to be called first and mandating user confirmation before deployment. It gives clear context for when to use the tool, but does not mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, so it falls short of a 5.

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