liara_deploy_release

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but only states the action without details. It doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a mutating operation (likely yes, given 'deploy'), potential side effects (e.g., downtime, environment changes), authentication needs, rate limits, or response format. 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, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Deploy a release') and efficiently states the key input ('using a source ID'), making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool's complexity (a deployment operation likely involving mutating changes), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'deploy' entails, potential impacts, or return values, leaving the agent with inadequate context to use the tool safely and effectively.

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 fully documents the parameters (appName, sourceID, envVars). The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying 'sourceID' comes from a previous upload, which is minimal value. This meets the baseline of 3, as the schema handles the heavy lifting without description enhancement.

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 a release') and mentions the resource ('using a source ID'), which provides a basic purpose. However, it lacks specificity about what 'deploy' entails (e.g., activating a release, triggering a build) and doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'liara_rollback_release' or 'liara_start_app', leaving ambiguity about its unique function.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an uploaded source via 'liara_upload_source'), exclusions, or comparisons to related tools like 'liara_rollback_release' or 'liara_restart_app', leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit direction.

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