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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds meaningful context: deployment makes the agent respond to real customers, mentions assigned channels and inboxes, and requires user confirmation. It also discloses the returned status `deployed`. This is strong behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it does not discuss edge cases like deploying an already-live agent.

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 the core action, then adds the live-customer impact, confirmation requirement, return status, and stopping alternative in a compact two-sentence form. Every clause carries useful information.

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 one-parameter deployment tool, the description covers the action, effect, confirmation requirement, return value, and inverse operation. Annotations already cover the risk profile, so no important behavioral detail 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?

The single `agentId` parameter has 100% schema description coverage and is documented as coming from list_agents. The description does not add any parameter-specific details beyond the schema, which is acceptable at this coverage level.

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 specific verb and resource: putting an AI agent live, with the concrete effect that it answers real customers on assigned channels. It also names the inverse action, pause_agent, which clearly distinguishes it from siblings such as update_agent, test_agent, and pause_agent.

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?

Gives a clear usage condition and an explicit alternative for the reverse action: use this to go live, use pause_agent to stop it. It also adds a required confirmation step before calling. It does not mention prerequisites like existing deployment state, but the context is otherwise clear.

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