vercel_create_deployment

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that force_new skips build cache and when to use it, but omits important behaviors such as required permissions, idempotency, side effects on existing deployments, or response format. The safety profile (read/write) is implied but not explicitly stated.

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?

Three concise sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by parameter usage and a specific behavioral note about force_new. Every sentence earns its place.

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 deployment creation tool with 8 parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description covers the main two modes and cache behavior. However, it lacks explanation of the target parameter (production vs preview) and authentication parameters (api_key, team_id). Given the complexity and missing annotations, this is adequate but incomplete.

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 63% (5/8 params described). The description adds value by explaining the relationship between deployment_id and redeploy, and project_id+git_ref for fresh deploy. It also clarifies force_new's use case. However, it does not describe target (production vs preview), team_id, name, or api_key, which are left to the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given moderate coverage and added context.

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?

Description starts with 'Create a Vercel deployment', clearly stating the verb and resource. It then distinguishes two distinct modes: redeploy using deployment_id vs fresh deploy using project_id+git_ref. This purpose is specific and differentiates well from sibling tools like vercel_list_deployments and vercel_get_deployment.

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?

Description provides explicit guidance on when to use each parameter combination: 'Pass deployment_id to redeploy... or project_id + git_ref to deploy fresh'. It also explains when force_new is needed. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or offer alternatives among siblings (e.g., using vercel_list_deployments for listing).

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