pier_deploy_service

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure. It does state that the container is rebuilt and restarted from Git, Dockerfile, Compose, or image sources. However, it omits potential side effects like downtime, whether the operation is asynchronous, or whether existing runtime data is preserved.

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 two short front-loaded sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second earns its place by clarifying the rebuild/restart behavior and supported source types.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the core action and behavior well. It is missing details about return values, asynchronous completion, and potential deployment failures, but those are not critical for selecting and invoking this tool.

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 schema already fully describes the only parameter, appId, at 100% coverage. The description does not add extra parameter constraints, formatting rules, or relationships beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Trigger a new deployment for an app') and adds behavioral specificity by explaining that it rebuilds and restarts the container from a configured source. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like pier_start_or_restart_app, because rebuilding from source is the defining deployment action.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as pier_start_or_restart_app. The word 'deployment' implies some usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use, exclusions, or mention of prerequisites.

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