vibecloud_app_deploy

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does add useful context: first app host takes about 2–3 minutes, subsequent deploys about 10–20 seconds, and the flow is zip/upload/wait/deploy/poll. However, it does not disclose what happens to the existing app during redeploy, failure behavior, or any destructive side effects, which is a notable gap for a deploy 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?

The description is compact and the workflow is near the front, but it mixes two languages and slash-separated fragments that duplicate content, such as 'Compatibility alias' and 'Git apps are live.' It could be merged into a single coherent paragraph without losing 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 6-parameter deploy tool with no annotations and no output schema, this is incomplete: it omits the return or job-status shape, how wait/timeout/interval interact with polling, sandbox behavior, and cost or error implications. The timing and local_dir guidance help, but an agent still lacks enough detail to invoke it confidently.

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 only 17%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It explains local_dir semantics and implies polling, but app_id, wait, timeout_sec, and interval_sec are not described in the schema or the description, leaving most parameters underspecified.

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 explicitly identifies the tool as a compatibility alias of cloud_app_deploy and states the concrete action: redeploy an uploaded source or a git app and poll. It names both the resource and the operation, and the alias reference distinguishes it from the otherwise similar sibling cloud_app_deploy.

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 clear conditional usage: pass local_dir to zip and upload new source before deploying, or omit local_dir to redeploy the previously uploaded version or a git app. It also frames the tool as the compatibility alias of cloud_app_deploy, which helps an agent choose it in that context, though it doesn't enumerate exclusion cases.

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