deploy_local_folder

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states the action and the input path; it does not disclose whether the deployment overwrites an existing service, requires special permissions, or has any side effects. For a deployment action, this is 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 description is concise—two sentences—with the primary purpose stated first and the usage condition appended. There is no redundant or filler content; every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and when to use it.

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 is a deployment tool with no output schema and no annotations. The description only covers purpose and a usage tip, but omits crucial context such as what happens after deployment, how to verify success, whether the service gets replaced, or any required prerequisites. Given the complexity of deploying to Cloud Run, the description is critically incomplete for an agent to execute safely.

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 provides full descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage), so the schema carries the burden. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate, as the schema already defines each parameter's purpose and defaults.

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: deploy a local folder to Cloud Run. It names a specific verb and resource, and the addition of 'Use this tool if the entire folder content needs to be deployed' distinguishes it from sibling tools like deploy_local_files and deploy_file_contents, which handle different deployment scopes.

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 a clear condition for when to use the tool: when deploying the entire folder content. It implies that for partial deployments, alternative tools should be used, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives. The schema also includes a guidance note on the project parameter (user confirmation), which adds to usage clarity.

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