deploy_service

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the deployment trigger, source usage, and type detection, but does not mention safety aspects like service restart, potential downtime, or any destructive effects. More transparency on side effects would improve the score.

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 two sentences, front-loads the main purpose, and contains no superfluous information. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers the core functionality but omits important context: no output schema, no mention of return values or confirmation, and no guidance on monitoring deployment progress (e.g., using get_action or get_build_logs). For a deployment tool, this information would be valuable.

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 100% with two parameters, but their descriptions in the schema are minimal. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the parameter names and types, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 triggers deployment with current configuration and auto-detects service type (app or compose), distinguishing it from the sibling deploy_compose which likely targets only compose services. The verb 'dispara' (triggers) and resource 'deploy do serviço' are specific.

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 it works for both app and compose services and that the tool routes automatically, so users don't need to know the type in advance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus deploy_compose, lacking exclusionary guidance.

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