Deploy Metadata

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the tool's mutating nature is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it 'Builds a package.xml and deployment zip in memory' and 'Polls until complete or timeout,' plus explains the checkOnly flag avoids changes. This goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 consists of four focused sentences, each with a distinct purpose: core action, in-memory packaging, validation shortcut, and production test requirement plus polling. There is no fluff or redundant information.

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 complex deploy tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main behaviors (deploy, validate-only, runTests, polling) and operational effects. It omits explicit return-value details and scenarios like combining 'components' with 'componentsXml', but the rich schema fills those gaps. It is reasonably complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by highlighting 'runTests' as required for production and explaining checkOnly as a validation-only mode. It also references the packaging process that relates to components/componentsXml, but does not over-repeat schema details.

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 opens with 'Deploys a set of metadata components directly to the org using the Metadata API SOAP deploy operation,' using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like sf_retrieve_metadata and sf_check_deploy_status by naming the Metadata API deploy operation and the in-memory package.xml/zip construction.

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?

It provides concrete usage guidance: 'Supports validate-only (checkOnly:true) for pre-deployment validation without making changes' and 'Specify runTests ... required for production.' It implies the primary use case is deploying metadata, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as when to prefer individual create tools or sf_check_deploy_status.

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