deploy_agent

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool creates a Vapi assistant with prompt, voice, transcriber, and keywords baked in, and that one call yields one working agent. However, it does not mention potential side effects like costs, auth requirements, or whether it overwrites existing agents, which is important for a deploying/mutation tool.

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 three short sentences that are front-loaded with the core action. The first sentence states what it does, the second details what is created, and the third summarizes the outcome. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or padding.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 6 parameters, the description covers the main purpose, markets, verticals, and baked-in components. However, it omits any indication of return values (e.g., an agent ID), potential overwriting behavior, or prerequisites. This is a notable gap for a deployment tool with moderate complexity.

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 low (33%), so the description needs to compensate. It adds enumerated values for market (fr, us, sv) and vertical (elagueur, plombier, tree-service, etc.), and references keywords/voice. Yet it leaves name, company, and voiceIdOverride unexplained beyond what the schema barely provides, so the description only partially compensates for the coverage gap.

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 ('Deploy') and clearly identifies the resource ('full production phone agent') with explicit market and vertical parameters. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like list_agents, run_eval, or prompt_diff, which perform different functions.

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 clear context on when to use this tool: deploying a production agent for a specific market and vertical. It implicitly differentiates from sibling tools by naming the deployment action. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, which keeps it from a 5.

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