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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: possible charges and a mandatory BEON PASS approval step, which tells the agent this is a gated, billable write. It still omits deployment lifecycle behavior (async completion, in-progress conflicts).

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?

Three short sentences, zero filler, and the commit-selection scope is front-loaded before the cost and approval constraints. Every sentence earns its place.

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 10-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the description covers cost and approval prerequisites but leaves the bulk of the beon_* parameters and the return/result behavior undocumented. Adequate but with clear 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 0% across 10 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It only clarifies commit selection (commitSha) and, indirectly via 'exact user approval', the approval_id/beon_* approval fields; the other parameters remain unexplained in both schema and description.

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 (deploy) and resource (a service) plus the commit-selection scope, which distinguishes it from siblings like railway_restart_deployment, railway_rollback_deployment, and vercel_create_deployment. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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 implies the context (deploying a service) and states a precondition ('Requires exact user approval in BEON PASS'), which is genuinely useful routing information. However, it never says when to prefer this over restart_deployment or rollback_deployment, nor when-not to use it.

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