Deploy Role Templates

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it names the files written, the language variants, the archive location, the overwrite condition, and the reversibility guarantee. It also explains the non-destructive force=False path, which is exactly the kind of side-effect disclosure agents need.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states purpose, the second lists concrete artifacts, and the third explains the branching behavior. Each sentence earns its place, and there is no filler or repeated schema content.

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 plus the 100% schema coverage and existing output schema cover the essential calling context: target files, language variants, force behavior, and reversibility. It does not explicitly state prerequisites such as an initialized project or fcop.json, nor does it contrast with sibling deployment tools, but these are not critical gaps for a tool this well specified.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real semantic value for 'force' by explaining that existing files are archived under .fcop/migrations/<timestamp>/shared/ before overwrite and that force=False reports files as skipped. It does not add meaning for 'lang' or 'team', but the schema already documents those fully.

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 names a specific verb ('Deploy'), the resource ('three-layer team documentation'), and the exact files written, so there is no doubt what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings such as 'redeploy_rules', which keeps it just below the top score.

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 intended use is implied by the purpose: deploy team role templates into shared/. However, the description never states when to choose this over alternatives like redeploy_rules, init_project, or create_custom_team, and it gives no when-not-to-use guidance. The force=True/False branching is parameter behavior, not tool-selection guidance.

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