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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds real context on top: the new release replaces the active one after rollout, the call returns before the deployment is live (async acceptance), and idempotencyKey replays return the same deployment. It does not explain what 'permitted' means operationally or what happens on a failed rollout.

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?

Four tight sentences, each carrying distinct information: source selection, replacement semantics, return timing, and idempotency. No restatement of the name or title, and the key scoping facts are front-loaded.

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 mutation tool with four parameters and no output schema, the description covers the important asymmetry an agent needs: it returns before the deployment is live, so status must be checked via eurobase_get_deployment or eurobase_list_deployment_events. The remaining gap is precondition detail around what 'permitted' means and failure behavior.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does explain the branch/commitSha semantics (default is the latest commit of the configured branch) and the replay guarantee tied to idempotencyKey. projectId is only implied via 'a permitted project,' leaving its format and permission semantics to the pattern constraint in the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource pair ('Builds and deploys a permitted project from its GitHub repository') and clarifies the source selection (configured branch, explicit branch, or commitSha). It is clearly a deploy action, but it never names how it differs from nearby siblings such as eurobase_redeploy, eurobase_rollback, or eurobase_promote.

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?

Usage is implied through the source-selection sentence and the word 'permitted,' but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over eurobase_redeploy or eurobase_rollback. The agent must infer the boundary from sibling names rather than the text.

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