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 agent knows this is an irreversible traffic mutation. The description adds the plan-requirement constraint, which is useful context, but says nothing about whether the traffic shift can be halted/reverted or what happens if the canary is unhealthy. It clears the lower annotated bar but adds modest value.

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 tight sentences, with the core action front-loaded and the constraint secondary. No filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for what it says, though it is not maximally information-dense.

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?

This is a destructive mutation tool with 10 params (0% described), no output schema, and a multi-step rolling-release workflow shared with sibling tools. The description omits failure behavior, required plan tiers, and the relationship to the other rolling-release stages, leaving the agent without enough to invoke it safely in context.

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, so the description carries the full burden for parameter meaning. It only loosely gestures at a "selected canary deployment" (mapping to deployment_id) and ignores team_id, project_id, and the beon_* fields entirely. With such a large undocumented surface, the description does not compensate.

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 gives a concrete verb and resource: "Start routing production traffic to the selected canary deployment." This is specific enough to distinguish the action from siblings like complete_rolling_release or approve_rolling_release_stage, since it describes the traffic-shift step. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so it falls 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?

"Requires provider plan support" is a genuine prerequisite, which is more than nothing. However, there is no guidance on when to use this versus approve_rolling_release_stage, complete_rolling_release, or promote_deployment, nor any stated preconditions (e.g., a canary must exist). Usage is implied at best.

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