bg3_deploy

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the game-running refusal, that the previous pak is backed up, that enabling happens after dependencies in modsettings.lsx, and that it re-runs after load-order rewrites. It omits permission/auth requirements and any return-value detail, but the output schema covers returns.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: the core action leads, followed by constraints and caveats in a parenthetical. Every clause earns its place, though the single long sentence is slightly run-on.

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 multi-step deploy operation with an output schema present, the description covers the essential mechanics, side effects, and preconditions. The main gap is under-specification of the two parameters, particularly the 'enable' flag.

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 must compensate. It implies 'layer' corresponds to a folder under Mods/ and Public/ (Mods/<folder> + Public/<folder>), which helps. However, the 'enable' boolean (default true) is only obliquely implied by 'enable it in the active profile's modsettings.lsx' and is never explicitly explained.

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?

States specific verbs and resource: pack a mod layer via Divine, deploy the pak to the user Mods folder, and enable it in modsettings.lsx. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like bg3_add_mod_layer (which adds a layer rather than packaging/deploying one) and bg3_remove_mod_layer.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use context: 'Works for any mod; no per-mod scripts' and 'Re-run after a mod manager rewrites the load order.' The refusal condition (game running) is stated. It stops short of explicitly naming alternative siblings or when-not-to-use beyond that condition.

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