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

Annotations only indicate non-read-only/non-destructive; the description adds meaningful context: it builds/runs, creates a single app per call, supports parallel apps, assigns HTTPS domains, and auto-detects stack. It does not disclose failure behavior or overwrite semantics, but it adds useful detail beyond annotations.

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 short and front-loaded with the main action, and each clause adds context (parallel apps, domain/HTTPS, auto-detection). It is dense but not wordy.

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?

The description covers the core deploy workflow and key behaviors, and the schema handles parameter documentation. But with no output schema and minimal annotations, it does not describe expected return values or differentiate from deploy_app, leaving some gaps.

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 100% and already documents port, slug, vps_id, and upload_id. The description does not add meaningful parameter-specific explanation beyond restating that slug becomes the domain.

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?

Description clearly states the tool builds and runs uploaded source code into one app, with slug-based domain and automatic HTTPS. It identifies the verb+resource, but does not differentiate from the sibling deploy_app, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

"Bước 2" implies this is the deployment step after uploading source, and the schema ties upload_id to prepare_code_deploy. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this versus deploy_app or provide exclusions.

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