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

Annotations only declare the generic safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent, closed-world). The description goes well beyond that with the concurrency limit (one build per app at a time), rate limits on running builds and builds per hour, refusal behavior that states when to retry, and the required follow-up action of polling get_app_status. That is exactly the operational context an agent needs before firing an async build.

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 sentences, each doing distinct work: what it does, when to call it, and the operational constraints plus the required polling follow-up. The purpose is front-loaded and there is 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?

Although there is no output schema, the description compensates by naming get_app_status as the polling mechanism and explaining that a refusal carries retry timing. Combined with the concurrency and rate-limit notes, an agent has everything needed to invoke and follow through 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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already explains app_id as the value returned by list_apps. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully carries the parameter burden.

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 with precise scope: rebuilds from the latest commit (or last upload) and deploys only when the build passes. An agent knows exactly what happens. However, it never distinguishes itself from the very similar siblings deploy_app and redeploy_app, which is a real ambiguity given they share the same domain.

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 two concrete trigger conditions: after a failed build, or to ship new commits when auto-deploy is off. That is clear context for use. It stops short of an explicit when-not or a direct comparison to redeploy_app, so the agent must infer which sibling wins when both could apply.

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