backend_deploy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses that dry_run makes no calls, that live deployment requires human approval, that migrations are tracked, and that secret values are reported by name only rather than echoed. It stops short of covering idempotency, rollback, or permission requirements for live runs.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and resource, and the parenthetical lists are dense but each item earns its place by telling the agent what will actually be provisioned. The single run-on sentence is information-heavy but slightly unwieldy.

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 high-complexity deployment tool with 4 params, an output schema present, and no annotations, the description covers scope, safety gating, and dry-run behavior well. The unexplained app_dir/project_ref semantics are the main residual gap, but return values are correctly left to the output schema.

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 0% for 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains dry_run's semantics and implies the approval/approval_id mechanism, but app_dir and project_ref receive no explanation in either place, leaving half the surface documented only by name.

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?

Specific verb (Deploy) plus a precise resource (the spec's Supabase backend), with an explicit enumeration of what is deployed: migrations, secrets, auth, legal build, and a named function set. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like supabase_create_project or supabase_run_sql without opening any schema.

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?

Clear context: dry_run=true is the default and returns only a plan, while a live deploy requires human approval via the approval path. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when-not to use this versus supabase_* setup tools, so it falls short of the explicit-alternatives bar.

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