deploy_file_contents

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It states the action (deploy files) but does not disclose side effects such as creating or updating a Cloud Run service, potential overwrites, or whether the operation is async or sync. For a mutation tool that deploys services, this lack of effect disclosure is a significant 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?

Two sentences with zero fluff. The opening sentence states the core action and method, and the second sentence gives the explicit usage condition. Everything in the description is essential and front-loaded.

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 tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the selection criteria but misses execution details like expected behavior, return values, or error handling. The schema covers parameter definitions, but the operational context (e.g., deployment progress, confirmation requirements for project ID) is absent, making the tool only partially complete for an agent.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description only repeats the main concept ('array of file objects containing filename and content'), which adds no new meaning beyond the schema. It does not clarify parameter relationships, defaults, or the meaning of 'project' being optional, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Deploy'), names the resource ('files to Cloud Run'), and specifies the method ('by providing their contents directly'). It also distinguishes from siblings by noting the condition 'if the files only exist in the current chat context', which sets it apart from deploy_local_files and deploy_local_folder.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this tool if the files only exist in the current chat context.' This gives a clear selection criterion, though it does not name the alternative tools explicitly. The implicit contrast with local deployment tools is present but not spelled out as a formal 'when-not-to-use' statement.

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