Deploy Branch

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

Annotations indicate the operation is not read-only and is not destructive, but the description adds no details about side effects (e.g., whether deployment overrides the current live version, requires a commit, or is reversible). The agent is left unaware of what actually happens during deploy, making this a significant transparency gap.

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 entire description is a single 9-word sentence that is front-loaded and contains no filler, precisely conveying the tool's core action.

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?

This deployment tool has no output schema and annotations only state the operation is non-read-only and non-destructive. The description fails to explain the outcome, return value, or any post-deployment steps, making it incomplete for an AI agent to use safely, especially given the existence of a large set of sibling git tools.

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 already describes both parameters ('Branch to deploy', 'Agent id') at 100% coverage, and the description only restates the same information ('branch of an agent's git repo'), adding no syntactic or semantic detail beyond the 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 'Deploy a branch of an agent's git repo,' which uses a specific verb ('deploy') and resource ('branch'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling git tools like merge_branches or switch_branch. However, it doesn't elaborate on what deployment entails or explicitly contrast with alternatives, so it's clear but not maximally differentiated.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool over sibling git operations (e.g., git_merge_branches, git_switch_branch, or git_create_pr). It doesn't mention prerequisites, workflow context, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.

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