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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety bar is lower, but the description adds real behavior: feature deploys run against the feature's own copy of the data and leave the lambda alone, and failures return diagnostics while the current live state is retained. It does not spell out permissions beyond the schema's 'editor key', which keeps it from a 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?

Two dense sentences with no filler; the primary behavior and the default are front-loaded, and the alternative feature mode and failure behavior follow in the same compact block.

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 mutating, non-read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers both operating modes, the default target, failure behavior, and downstream safety. It leaves only minor details (auth expectations, what a successful response looks like) implicit, which is acceptable given there is no output schema to rely on.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the terse schema text: using 'feature' targets a preview address, runs against that feature's copy of the data, and explicitly does not touch the lambda. That isolation semantic is not conveyed by the parameter description alone.

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 ('Deploy (publish) a saved version') plus the two distinct modes (version to the lambda's public address vs. feature to its preview address) and the default. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like merge_feature and create_feature without opening their 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?

Explicitly says what happens with the 'feature' argument versus without it, and states the default behavior when 'version' is omitted. It stops short of naming which sibling to use instead for related operations (e.g. merge_feature for merging a feature), so it is clear context rather than explicit alternatives.

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