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

With annotations only covering safety hints, the description carries rich behavioral detail: it moves the exact image tag rather than rebuilding, it can be refused for five named reasons, and it returns already_current with no deploy when the target is already current. It adds far more than the readOnly/idempotent/destructive hints provide.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then failure modes, then the idempotent-answer note, then naming rules. The sentence count is high but every clause (refusal conditions, push-loop interaction, naming caveat) is load-bearing information an agent must have.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and only safety annotations, the description covers the mutation semantics, refusal outcomes, the already_current response, and the identifier format. Nothing essential to calling it correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds a real disambiguation rule beyond the schema: environments may be named by id, cluster name, or role, and a role shared by two environments requires the cluster name. That extra constraint meaningfully supplements the three string params.

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?

States a precise verb+resource (promote an application build from a source environment to a target) and sharply contrasts it with a plain deploy: 'never a rebuild, never configuration'. An agent can distinguish this from deploy_application or redeploy_stack without opening a schema.

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?

Enumerates explicit when-not conditions (unhealthy source, unidentifiable build, target follows pushes, deploy in flight, missing secret) and even an interim remedy ('turn that off first'). This is the rare case of full when/when-not guidance rather than implied usage.

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