cli_deploy_up

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently discloses that services will be 'restart[ed]' (indicating downtime/mutation) and uses 'SSH' (indicating remote execution), which is valuable. However, it lacks critical safety context for a production deployment tool: no mention of downtime duration, rollback behavior, failure handling, or authentication requirements.

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 a single, efficient sentence of 11 words with no redundancy. It front-loads the action ('Deploy') and every phrase earns its place by conveying critical information about the mechanism (SSH), target (VPS), and impact (restart).

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 high-risk production deployment tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core operation adequately but lacks completeness regarding operational safety. It should disclose whether the deployment causes downtime, requires pre-existing SSH keys, or has dependencies on other tools in the deploy pipeline.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for its single parameter, establishing a baseline of 3. The description does not explicitly reference the 'projectPath' parameter or add semantic context about how the path is used, but this is acceptable given the schema fully documents it. No additional constraints or format details are provided in the description.

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 specific action ('Deploy'), the target ('latest images to the VPS'), and the side effects ('restart all production services via SSH'). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'cli_deploy_build' (which likely creates images) and 'cli_deploy_sync_features' (which likely syncs configuration) by specifying this is the final remote production deployment step.

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 specifies the target context ('production services') which implies this is for production environments, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cli_deploy_build' or 'cli_docker_up'. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., requiring a build first) or warnings about when NOT to use it.

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