site_files_deploy

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and write behavior. The description adds specifics: 'Existing files are overwritten; nothing is deleted' and runs as root, which clarifies the exact destructive scope. Only minor additional context like rate limits missing.

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 front-loaded with the core action and well-structured: overview, source type details, overwrite behavior, dry_run/confirm. Every sentence serves a purpose without redundancy.

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 complex tool with no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: prerequisites (SSH), safe usage (dry_run), exact effects for each source type, overwrite policy, and destination semantics. No gaps remain.

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?

The description explains parameter usage beyond schema: source_type behaviors (shallow-clone, automatic top-level dir descent), dest_subpath relativity, and ref usage. Considering 71% schema coverage, the description compensates fully, adding essential meaning for all parameters.

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 deploys site files by fetching them on the server (git clone or tarball) into the web root, then chowning. It distinguishes itself from siblings like site_files_upload (local upload) by specifying the server-side fetch mechanism.

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 specifies when to use (WRITE operations, with dry_run for preview) and prerequisites (SSH host). It implies alternatives (upload for local files) but does not explicitly list when not to use. The guidance is clear enough.

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