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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation risk is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the paid-plan requirement, the refusal behavior for concurrent operations, the naming of the running job, the wait-and-retry guidance, and the specific 'RationalBloks is being updated' refusal message. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the core action and requirement ('Promote staging to production (requires paid plan)'), followed by refusal conditions. Every sentence adds behavioral information. It could be slightly more structured, but it is efficient and free of 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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key operational constraints: paid plan, destructive confirmation, concurrency refusal, and retry guidance. It doesn't describe the success response or what the deploy plan looks like, but the schema and annotations cover the parameters and safety profile. The main gap is not describing what a successful call returns, which is minor given the tool's complexity.

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 both parameters. The description adds meaning to confirm_destructive by explaining that a deploy dropping tables/columns/entities/relationships/fields is refused without it, and that it should be set only after reviewing the plan. This is useful but not extensive; the baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the heavy lifting.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Promote staging to production') and distinguishes it from deploy_staging and deploy_graph_production by naming the promotion direction. It doesn't explicitly name the sibling it is not, but the promotion semantics are clear enough to separate it from staging deploys.

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 description gives clear context for when to call it (promote staging to production) and when the call will be refused (while another operation runs, while RationalBloks is being updated, or when a destructive deploy lacks confirmation). It doesn't explicitly say 'use deploy_staging instead for staging-only changes,' but the promotion wording implies the alternative.

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