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

Adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: async execution requiring get_job_status polling, the 'RationalBloks is being updated' refusal and retry advice, CORS origin integration, private-repo GitHub App requirement, and port 8000/GET /health for logicblok. This is rich context the annotations (non-idempotent, non-destructive) cannot convey.

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?

Dense and front-loaded, with the core deploy action and module types stated first and the async/polling caveat last. Slightly overpacked with detail (port, health endpoint) but every sentence carries operational value.

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 names the returned job_id and the follow-up tool, and covers auth requirements, retry behavior, and module-type semantics. Nothing critical for a correct invocation is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents all 9 parameters. The description clarifies module_type semantics and git_ref's default-branch behavior, but adds little beyond what the schema states; baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ('Deploy a new module from a GitHub repository onto the project's resource pool') and defines both module types, distinguishing it from redeploy_module which operates on existing modules. An agent can identify the operation without opening the 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?

Implies this is for creating a new module and explicitly routes polling to get_job_status. However, it never names redeploy_module as the alternative for an existing module, so the create-vs-redeploy boundary 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.