deploy_compose

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and provides good transparency: it explains the multi-step process, mentions the Data Layer for databases, and specifies the local build behavior with local_image_archives. It doesn't cover idempotency or permissions, but the key side effects and conditional behavior are disclosed.

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 with every clause serving a purpose: the first sentence encloses the entire workflow, and the second adds a conditional instruction. No fluff or redundancy exists.

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?

The description offers a good high-level overview and the local build nuance, but for a complex tool with 7 parameters, no annotations, and many sibling tools, it lacks context about prerequisites, idempotency, and relationship to planning/analyzing tools. The presence of an output schema mitigates return-value explanations but not these gaps.

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%, and the description only elaborates on local_image_archives and indirectly compose_yaml. Parameters like project_id, app_name, route_slug, compute_placement, and redeploy_strategy are not explained beyond their schema titles, leaving a significant gap for a tool with 7 parameters.

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 function: analyze docker-compose.yml, split into deploy units, provision databases, and deploy the remaining services as apps. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like deploy_image which handles single images, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies use for docker-compose files by mentioning 'docker-compose.yml' and the deployment flow, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. Sibling tools like analyze_compose_deploy_plan are not referenced, so guidance is only implied.

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