vortex_deploy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the description's 'Writes mod files into the game through Vortex' is consistent and useful confirmation of exactly what is mutated. It also discloses the return shape ('Returns a job ID'), which matters because no output schema exists, but it stops short of saying what happens to previously deployed files or whether the job can be awaited/cancelled.

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?

Three short sentences, each load-bearing: what is queued, what it touches, and what comes back. The mutation and return information are front-loaded with no filler.

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 single-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, the write behavior, and the return value, which is nearly everything an agent needs. The remaining gaps (parameter meaning, effects on existing deployed files) are modest but real.

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% and the single profileId parameter is never mentioned by name or meaning in the description. The phrase 'ACTIVE Vortex profile' only vaguely gestures at profile state and does not explain whether profileId must reference the active profile or how it is validated, so the description fails to compensate 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Queue deployment of the ACTIVE Vortex profile') and narrows scope with 'ACTIVE', which separates it from the several sibling tools that list or manage profiles/mods. It also names the mechanism ('through Vortex'), so an agent can distinguish it from vortex_profiles or vortex_install_download without opening a schema.

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 word 'ACTIVE' implies the profile must already be active, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisite (e.g. a deployable profile must exist), and no named alternative for related operations like vortex_install_download or vortex_job. Usage is only inferable from the scope wording.

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