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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the asynchronous contract, the immediate response shape ({ deployId, status: "building", poll }), the background build duration, and the follow-up polling requirement. It omits auth/permission requirements and any note about failure/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?

The core action is front-loaded and every sentence adds information about async behavior or tool chaining. The middle clauses about the hosted URL and response payload make it slightly dense/run-on, but there is no 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?

No output schema exists, and the description helpfully covers the return shape and the polling loop, which is what an agent most needs. However, for a 4-parameter tool with a nested object and zero schema coverage, leaving name and target undocumented is a real gap, and no output/error semantics beyond "ready or error" are given.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it only partially does. It clarifies provider="codebase" behavior (hosted site at <projectId>.codebase.guru) and implies projectId semantics, but the "name" and "target" parameters are never mentioned or explained despite target being a nested object.

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 ("Start a deployment for a built Codebase project") and qualifies the input as an already-built project, which distinguishes it from codebase_start_build. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like codebase_publish or codebase_rollback_deploy, but the action is unambiguous.

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 clear operational guidance: the call returns immediately and the caller must poll codebase_get_deploy_status until ready or error, and it notes the deployId works with codebase_rollback_deploy. It stops short of stating when to choose this over publish or start_build, but the implied workflow is well covered.

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