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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the snapshot-before-apply safety behavior and, unusually, an asynchronous approval gate ('May return pending_approval', owner emailed, expected follow-up polling). This is behavior an agent could not infer from the schema.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its relationship to deploys, then the side effect, then the edge-case return path. No filler.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description covers the notable return case (pending_approval), the side effect (snapshot), and the required follow-up, so an agent knows both what it does and what to do with the result.

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 description coverage is 100% for both required parameters (project, env), so the schema already documents them. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 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 ('Apply pending migrations'), scopes it to the live release, and immediately contextualizes it against the deploy flow. An agent can distinguish it from db.migrations (listing) and deploy without opening either 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?

The parenthetical 'deploys do this automatically' signals when manual invocation is warranted, and the description routes the agent to approval.status for the approval branch. It stops short of an explicit when-not statement or naming db.migrations as the alternative for inspection.

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