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

The annotations already declare destructive=true, openWorld=true, idempotent=false, and readOnly=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that live routing changes, but does not explain effects on the previous production deployment, approval behavior, or reversibility.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and effect. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

The description covers the core action and live-routing impact, but for a destructive production mutation with 10 parameters, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, it omits critical context about parameters, approval flow, and side effects.

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?

There are 10 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain any of them. It does not clarify required project_id/deployment_id, team_id, approval_id, or the beon_* parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource: promoting an existing deployment to production. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings such as rolling-release or rollback tools that also affect production traffic.

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?

It implies usage by saying this promotes an existing deployment, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives like vercel_rollback, vercel_redeploy, or rolling-release tools. No prerequisites such as deployment readiness or approval requirements are mentioned.

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