cyd_app_deploy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior itself. It does mention that the manifest is checked, that the tool returns to Home first, and that it installs or updates a whole directory. However, it does not disclose the destructive nature of the 'replace' parameter (default true) or any side effects like overwriting existing apps, nor does it mention permission or state changes. The behavior is partially transparent but not complete for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 three sentences with no filler. Key information (action, scope, path resolution, behavioral prerequisite) is front-loaded. The phrase 'Machine-specific (cyd). Action, L1.' is somewhat cryptic but does not waste words. It is appropriately compact for the complexity.

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 deploy operation with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should cover parameter effects, error behavior, and side effects. It covers app_dir resolution and the Home-return requirement, but omits the semantics of the boolean parameters (pin, launch, replace) and does not mention return values or failure modes. The tool is more complex than a simple list or query, so this is insufficient.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It explains app_dir resolution, but says nothing about 'pin', 'launch', or 'replace' — their meanings, defaults, or effects. With 4 parameters and only one addressed, the description fails to provide semantic value for the majority of the input schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Install or update'), a clear resource ('whole app directory'), and enumerates the contents (manifest.json, entry file, assets, binaries). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like cyd_launch or cyd_package_upload by scope — whole directory vs single file.

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?

It provides context on where app_dir is resolved (CYD_DESKTOP_APPS_ROOT, default examples dir) and a prerequisite (returns to Home before upload because device refuses uploads while an app runs). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use this tool versus cyd_package_upload or other install-related siblings, leaving usage selection partially to inference.

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