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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds what actually gets replaced (the active release, after a successful rollout) and clarifies the async contract: it returns on acceptance, before the deployment is live. The idempotencyKey replay rule is useful nuance beyond idempotentHint. It stops short of stating permission/auth model or reversibility (rollback), so 4 rather than 5.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its constraints, then behavior, then return timing, then idempotency. No filler and nothing redundant with the schema.

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 destructive, async, no-output-schema mutation, the description covers preconditions, side effect, return timing, and idempotency — the essentials. It could add what to do after acceptance (poll get_deployment or list_deployments) and whether the change is reversible, but nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 compensate, and it does for the two non-obvious parameters: deploymentId is constrained to a finished, non-active deployment, and idempotencyKey is given concrete replay semantics. projectId is left unstated but is self-evident from the name and the prj_ pattern.

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 (promotes) and resource (deploymentId) and pins down the exact scope: a finished deployment, of a permitted project, that is not the active one. The phrase 'without rebuilding' implicitly distinguishes it from eurobase_redeploy, so an agent can pick between them without opening schemas.

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?

Preconditions are explicit: the deployment must be finished, the project must permit it, and it must not already be active. Combined with 'publishing its retained build output without rebuilding' and 'replaces the active release', the agent can infer redeploy vs promote vs rollback. It does not name a sibling tool outright, so no full 5.

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