Deploy App Settings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the key asynchronous nature of the API and directs users to check progress with a sibling tool. However, it does not describe the effect on the production environment, whether deployment is reversible, or any permissions required, leaving moderate gaps for a mutating 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 exactly two sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and the async follow-up immediately stated. Every sentence earns its place, and 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?

Given the full parameter schema, presence of an output schema, and the description's disclosure of asynchronous behavior plus the status-checking sibling, the definition is largely complete. It lacks explicit notes on permissions or error conditions, but those are not essential for correct invocation given the available structured data.

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%, so the input schema fully documents both parameters (apps array with app and optional revision, plus the revert boolean). The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('deploy'), resource ('app settings'), and environment transition ('from pre-live to production environment'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, particularly kintone-get-app-deploy-status, which is explicitly named as the follow-up status checker.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool (deploying app settings from pre-live to production) and mentions the related status-checking tool as the next step. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternatives, but the deployment scope is specific enough that the agent can determine appropriate usage.

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