deploy_package

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and excels: it warns 'MUTATES the live workspace', explains the side effect of restart=true (restarts running recipes), describes the home_folder_id edge case to avoid import errors, and mentions the return object. This is rich behavioral context beyond what annotations would provide.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place, from the core operation to the return value and safety warning. The flow is logical: action first, then optional behaviors, return payload, and a prominent warning. It's slightly long but not wasteful.

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 (mutation, polling, edge cases) and lack of output schema, the description is complete: it states what the tool does, flags mutation, provides a dry-run alternative, explains the home_folder_id gotcha, and lists the return fields. There's no missing critical context for safe usage.

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 the description must compensate—and it does, covering all five parameters: dir (contents to zip), folder_id (target), restart (restarts recipes), dry_run (preview), and home_folder_id (sets folder_id_for_home_assets). Each parameter's role is clarified, adding value beyond the bare 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'RLCM IMPORT (local -> Workato)' and explicitly describes the action ('zip the CONTENTS of dir and import into folder_id, then poll'). This uniquely distinguishes it from siblings like export_package (which likely handles the reverse direction).

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 clear context for when to use dry_run=true ('to preview without importing') and home_folder_id ('needed when importing into a Projects workspace whose Home assets folder is a project'), and warns to confirm with the user. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but the context sufficiently guides usage.

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