site_files_deploy

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

No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It thoroughly discloses: overwrites existing files without deletion, runs as root, specific behaviors for git (shallow-clone, exclude .git) and tarball (auto-descend single top-level directory), and the dry_run/confirm workflow. Fills in all key behavioral traits.

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?

Description is dense but well-organized: starts with high-level purpose, then breaks down source_type behaviors, and ends with safety flags. No filler sentences; each sentence provides distinct, valuable information.

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 7-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers most aspects: prerequisites (SSH), source constraints, behavior during deployment, and safety mechanics. Missing are potential error conditions or what happens if SSH is unavailable, but it is largely complete.

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 71%, but description adds significant meaning: clarifies ref is optional git-only, source must be https://, dest_subpath is relative, and explains dry_run/confirm purpose beyond schema defaults. Every parameter's role is amplified.

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 action: 'Deploy site files onto the host by fetching them ON the server'. It specifies the resource (site's web root) and the two methods (git clone or tarball download). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like site_file_put (local upload) and site_files_upload.

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 context for when to use: requires SSH, only https:// sources, dry_run/confirm pattern. It implies alternatives via mention of 'no local copy needed', contrasting with upload tools. However, it does not explicitly compare to siblings or state when not to use.

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