deploy_role_templates

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

No annotations provided, so the description fully carries the burden. It comprehensively discloses: file writing, archiving under .fcop/migrations, reversibility, and bilingual variants. All relevant behavioral traits are covered.

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 concise (4 sentences), front-loaded with the primary action, and structured logically: first the overall function, then file listing, then force behavior. No extraneous words.

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?

Given 3 parameters, no output schema required, and clear handling of force vs skip, the description covers the tool's operation well. Minor omission: it doesn't mention whether the tool requires initialization, but that is implicit from the context.

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% with good descriptions. The description adds value by clarifying default behavior (empty uses fcop.json) and the archiving mechanism for force. This goes beyond the schema's basic parameter descriptions.

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 explicitly states 'Deploy the three-layer team documentation' and lists specific files (TEAM-README.md, TEAM-ROLES.md, etc.), providing a clear verb+resource. No sibling tool performs a similar deployment, so distinction is inherent.

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 explains the force parameter behavior (archive vs skip) and notes defaults from fcop.json. While it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, the context is clear enough given no similar siblings.

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