deploy_app

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'deploy' which implies a mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it's destructive (e.g., overwrites existing settings), rate limits, or what happens post-deployment (e.g., app downtime, confirmation). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Japanese that directly states the tool's action. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness, such as by hinting at the deployment scope or outcome.

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 complexity of a deployment tool (likely involving mutations and system changes), the description is insufficient. With no annotations, no output schema, and minimal behavioral details, it fails to provide a complete picture. For example, it doesn't cover error handling, success indicators, or how it integrates with sibling tools like 'get_deploy_status'. This leaves the agent with inadequate context for safe and effective use.

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 100%, with the 'apps' parameter fully documented in the schema as an array of app IDs for deployment targets. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining valid ID ranges or deployment order. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 the action ('deploy') and target ('kintone app settings'), which provides a basic purpose. However, it's vague about what 'deploy' entails (e.g., publishing changes, activating configurations) and doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'create_app' or 'update_app_settings', which could involve similar concepts. It avoids tautology but lacks specificity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify if this is for pushing development changes to production, activating settings after updates, or how it relates to siblings like 'get_deploy_status' or 'update_app_settings'. The description offers no context for usage decisions.

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