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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the write/destructive nature is covered. The one genuinely additive piece of context is 'This call asks no human' — it discloses that approval gates are bypassed, which matters for a destructive action. It does not say what happens to a running or already-started deployment, or whether the action is reversible.

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 very short sentences, zero filler, and the action plus its key property (no human gate) are front-loaded. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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, immediate mutation with no output schema, the description is thin: it does not describe the resulting state, what happens on a non-queued deployment, or any failure behavior. The approval-bypass note is valuable, but an agent still has to infer the post-call outcome.

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%; each of the three optional parameters documents its own 'Omit for the latest / the one you are in' default, so the schema carries the burden. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what is structured, which is the baseline expectation.

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: handing a *queued* Deployment to a runner, which distinguishes it from siblings like deployment_cancel, deployment_retry, and deployment_show. The 'queued' qualifier is what makes the action unambiguous, though the description never names an alternative tool outright.

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?

'Hand a queued Deployment' implies a precondition (the deployment must already be queued) and the word 'now' implies immediacy, so usage is inferable. However, it never says when to prefer this over deployment_retry or the generic deploy, nor what to do if the deployment is not queued.

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