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

Annotations already declare destructive/idempotent/openWorld, and the description adds context beyond them: the new release replaces the active one only after a successful rollout, the call returns at acceptance (async) before the deployment is live, and retries with the same key are safe. It stops short of stating required permissions 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, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the consequential effects. Slight awkwardness in 'a deployment of a permitted project' but nothing wasted.

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 3-required-param mutation with no output schema, it covers replacement semantics, async return timing, and idempotency — exactly what an agent needs to call it safely. The gaps are the unexplained projectId and the failure/permission 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 compensate: it explains that deploymentId identifies the commit to rebuild and that idempotencyKey deduplicates retries, which is real added value. However projectId is never explained, nor is the 'permitted project' access constraint or the expected ID formats.

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: it rebuilds the commit behind an existing deployment as a NEW deployment, which separates it from eurobase_deploy (new build) and from eurobase_promote/rollback. It never names those siblings, so the differentiation is inferable rather than explicit.

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 only implied by 'Rebuilds the commit of deploymentId' — an agent can infer this is for re-shipping an already-built commit rather than deploying fresh source. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or pointer to deploy/rollback/promote for adjacent cases.

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