Generate the deploy kit

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

Although the annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, the description adds substantial context beyond them: dry run by default, repo-root confinement, no symlinks, no deletions, overwrite gating, FILL IN handling, and refusal to write secret-like content. These are precisely the behavioral details an agent needs before invoking a write-capable generator.

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 dense but front-loaded: purpose and default behavior come first, followed by write safety and usage sequencing. The file list is long but directly relevant to what the tool generates, and no sentence is merely repetitive.

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 37-parameter generator with an output schema and destructive annotations, the description covers purpose, default dry-run behavior, write boundaries, error handling, secret refusal, and usage timing. An agent has enough context to call it correctly without needing return-value details that the output schema supplies.

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 89%, so the schema already documents most of the 37 parameters. The description adds useful meaning about unknown values becoming FILL IN and overwrite needing prior user agreement, but it does not explain most individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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 a specific verb and resource: it renders the deploy kit for a project. It enumerates the generated artifacts and makes clear this tool generates files, while sibling validate_deploy_kit validates them.

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 explicitly places the tool in phase 5, after the plan is agreed, and says to write only after the user has seen the diff. The default dry-run behavior and the write-only-after-diff sequence give clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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