deploy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the deployment process: packages the project as ZIP, uploads it, and returns a shareable link. It also describes the --next mode behavior (auto-detects Next.js, runs static export, deploys out/). However, it does not mention authentication requirements, possible side effects like overwriting existing deployments, or rate limits, which are relevant for a mutation tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes a second sentence for important process details. There is zero fluff, and every piece of information is relevant and necessary.

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 the absence of an output schema, the description appropriately states that it returns a shareable link. It covers the deployment flow, the --next mode, and all parameters are documented in the input schema. It lacks some edge-case information like error handling or whether the URL is stable across deployments, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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% coverage with detailed descriptions for all four parameters. The description itself does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides; it only mentions 'next' mode in general terms, which is already captured in the schema for the 'next' property.

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 tool's action: 'Deploy the current project to htmlto.link and get a live public URL.' It also describes the process (packages ZIP, uploads, returns link) and distinguishes itself from the sibling 'status' by focusing on the deployment action rather than checking status.

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 makes it clear when to use this tool: when you want to deploy a project and receive a live URL. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternatives, but its context is unambiguous compared to the only sibling 'status'. The mention of '--next mode' provides additional guidance for Next.js projects.

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