Acquia Deploy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. Deployment is a high-impact, likely state-changing operation, but the description omits authentication requirements, permissions, destructive effects, timeout/wait behavior, and rollback context. It only discloses the underlying command mechanisms.

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 two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The first states the action and target; the second states supported command paths. Every sentence is relevant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But for a 7-parameter deployment tool with no annotations and no schema parameter descriptions, the definition is missing essential context: authentication, environment targeting, branch/code path meaning, timeout/wait tradeoffs, and risk profile. It is not complete enough for safe invocation.

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 0% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate, but it names none of them. It does not explain environment, branch, site_id, code_path, timeout, database_name, or wait_for_completion. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the bare schema property names provide.

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: deploy to Acquia Cloud. It distinguishes the mechanism by naming acquia-cli and Drush acquia integration. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, but no obvious sibling deploy tool exists.

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 gives one useful preference: acquia-cli is preferred over legacy Drush acquia commands. However, it does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives or what prerequisites are needed. Usage guidance is therefore implied rather than explicit.

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