deploy_modal_app

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the agent knows deployment is a mutating operation. The description adds useful context by stating that deployed endpoints persist and that returned URLs are live shareable links. It does not disclose what can be overwritten or replaced during deployment, which would have strengthened transparency given the destructive hint.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose with the most important behavioral fact, followed by a succinct argument list and a return summary. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler or repetition of schema defaults.

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 tool with six parameters, an output schema, and annotations, the description covers the key call-time prerequisites, parameter semantics, and return fields. It could mention failure/conflict behavior or rollback semantics, but the output schema and annotations already cover safety and return structure, so the description is reasonably complete.

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%, so the description carries the explanatory burden for parameters. It documents all six arguments, including the absolute path precondition (uv + modal in virtualenv), the mapping of name/tag to `--name`/`--tag`, the valid strategy values, and stream_logs behavior. It could add more detail on env naming or tag format, but it already adds substantial meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Deploy a Modal app', and reinforces it with the underlying command `modal deploy`. It also distinguishes deployment from ephemeral execution by noting that endpoints persist after the call returns. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like run_modal_app or manage_modal_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 implies persistent deployment through the phrase 'endpoints persist after this returns', but it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose deploy over run_modal_app or manage_modal_app. There are no stated exclusions, prerequisites beyond the app's directory, or alternative tools to consider.

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