deployado_deploy_blueprint

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds almost no behavioral context beyond the name: it doesn't say what is destroyed or overwritten on redeploy, whether prerequisites like an existing server/project are needed, or how failures mid-stack are handled — significant omissions for a destructive stack-wide operation.

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 short sentences, action first, with the input-mode caveat second. Nothing is padded and the key information is 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?

The tool has zero required parameters, no output schema, and is marked destructive and non-idempotent; the description doesn't resolve the most important ambiguity — which parameter combinations form a valid call, or what happens to an existing stack. Adequate for orientation, but not sufficient for confident invocation of a high-risk operation.

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?

All five parameters are fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description adds a little by framing content and repository_url as mutually exclusive alternatives, but it doesn't say whether server_id/project_id are required for either path. 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Deploy an entire application stack from a blueprint') and clarifies the two input modes. It implicitly separates itself from the single-app deployado_deploy and deployado_validate_blueprint siblings, but never names them, so sibling differentiation is left to the agent.

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?

Usage is implied by 'from a blueprint' and by the two sourcing options (inline YAML vs GitHub URL). There is no explicit when-not guidance, no suggestion to run deployado_validate_blueprint first, and no mention of how this differs from deployado_deploy, which the agent must infer from sibling names.

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