liara_upload_source

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. It mentions 'upload' and 'for deployment', implying a write operation that likely triggers deployment, but fails to specify critical details like whether this overwrites existing source code, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens after upload (e.g., automatic deployment start). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand 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 that front-loads the core action and resource without any wasted words. It directly communicates the tool's function in a compact form, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 as a write operation for deployment with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the outcome (e.g., success response, deployment status), error conditions, or how it fits into the broader deployment lifecycle. For a mutation tool in a rich ecosystem, more context is needed to guide 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting both parameters ('appName' and 'filePath'). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the file must be a .tar.gz archive for deployment, but doesn't elaborate on parameter interactions or constraints (e.g., app must exist, file path validity). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action ('upload') and the resource ('source code (.tar.gz file) for deployment'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'liara_upload_object' by specifying 'source code' rather than generic objects, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'liara_deploy_release' which might handle deployment differently.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'liara_deploy_release' or 'liara_upload_object', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing an existing app or specific file format requirements. It lacks context about deployment workflows or integration with other tools.

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