Uruchom wdrozenie

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the asynchronous default behavior, the polling behavior when wait=true, and the 2-minute waiting cap. This adds meaningful behavioral context that annotations alone do not convey.

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 compact sentences carry all necessary information: the action, the default behavior, the wait option, and the alternative status tool. There is no redundant or filler content.

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 an action that returns no output schema, the description explains the default return ('potwierdzenie startu'), the optional wait mode with timeout, and where to check progress. It is not exhaustive about error behavior or timeout outcomes, but it is sufficient for correct 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds value by explaining what wait=true actually does (polls status until completion, max 2 minutes), which enriches the bare boolean parameter definition.

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 uses the specific verb 'Uruchamia' (launches) with the resource 'wdrozenie site' (deployment of site), making the action unmistakable. It clearly distinguishes this deploy operation from status or list siblings like forge_deployment_status and forge_list_deployments.

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?

The description provides concrete usage context: by default it returns immediately, and if you want to wait for completion you should set 'wait' to true. It also names forge_deployment_status as the tool for checking progress, which gives the agent a clear alternative path.

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