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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds real context beyond them: the dry-run preview enumerates commits, changed files, and required after-steps; the apply path is fast-forward only; and the deploy refuses when dirty live files would be overwritten. It does not explain the approval_id prerequisite, which matters for a destructive tool.

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 definition is dense and front-loads the core action before branching into dry_run, refusal conditions, and follow-ups. It drifts into a long parenthetical and a run-on sentence in the first clause, but no sentence is filler.

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 eight-parameter destructive deploy tool with no output schema, the description covers outcome (the ref to roll back to), safety defaults, failure modes, and post-step tooling. The missing piece is the approval workflow implied by approval_id, which an agent needs before calling with dry_run=false.

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 only 25% (path and server are the only described fields), so the description must compensate, and it largely does: dry_run default and effect, ref/branch semantics, and stash_local behavior are all spelled out. The approval_id and why parameters remain unexplained, leaving a real gap.

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 (bring a linked server folder to the latest commit of its branch) with scope detail: branch, commit/tag ref, and rollback use. It is clearly distinguishable from git_push, git_status, and rollback because it describes the deploy action itself and where the deploy lands.

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?

Explicitly defines the dry_run true versus false branches, states that dry_run defaults to true, and explains the refusal condition plus the two remedies (git_push first, or stash_local true). It also names the follow-up tools (magento, wp, run) for post-deploy steps and explains that the returned ref can drive a rollback.

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