deploy_modal_app

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses that endpoints persist and are live, the directory must use uv and have modal, and returns a dictionary with URLs. It lacks details on failure modes or idempotency, but covers key behavioral traits.

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 a paragraph followed by an args list. It is front-loaded with the main action. The list is clear, though slightly verbose. Could trim 'Args:' and 'Returns:' but still efficient.

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 6 parameters and an output schema, the description is thorough. It covers parameters, return value, and persistence. Minor gap: not contrasting with run_modal_app for temporary runs. Otherwise, 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 coverage is 0%, so description must fully explain parameters. It does: absolute_path_to_app (absolute path, with uv/modal requirement), env, name, tag, strategy (with values), stream_logs. It maps to CLI flags, adding functional meaning beyond just names.

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 'Deploy a Modal application' and equates it to 'modal deploy'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like run_modal_app by emphasizing persistence of web endpoints, making its unique purpose unmistakable.

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 explains when to use this tool (to deploy an app so it persists) and notes prerequisites (uv, modal installed). It could explicitly mention not to use for temporary runs (use run_modal_app instead), but the context is clear enough.

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