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

Adds substantial context beyond annotations: the exact mechanism (annotation bump), what is explicitly NOT touched (no helm upgrade, no env/Secret write, no image change), the precondition that a running deployment must exist, and the read-write token requirement. Minor gap: the 'safe restart' framing sits in mild tension with destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, neither of which the description addresses (e.g. that re-invoking bumps the annotation again, and that pods briefly go down).

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?

Front-loads the verb and mechanism, and every clause carries routing or safety information. Slightly overlong and repetitive in places — 'blast radius' and the redeploy contrast are asserted twice, and the parenthetical example could be tighter.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and annotations plus 100% schema coverage carry the structured details. What remains — mechanism, preconditions, auth, sibling routing, and non-effects — is all covered, so an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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% and both parameters already document their source tools (list_deployments, list_projects), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description restates the commit default to the canonical production commit but adds no format or edge-case detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 ('roll a project's pods for the canonical (production) commit') and defines the exact mechanism ('a pod-template annotation bump, exactly like kubectl rollout restart'). It explicitly names the sibling it is not (redeploy) and the sibling precondition tool (start_commit), so an agent can distinguish it without opening any schema.

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 the positive selection criterion ('fits whenever the goal is just make the running pods pick up nothing new... e.g. clear an in-memory leak or a wedged process'), an explicit exclusion versus redeploy ('which re-runs the full release install'), and a routing rule for the failure case ('start it first with start_commit'). Nothing is left to inference.

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