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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it specifies the required scope (deploy:write), states the live version is unaffected, describes the 409 error case, and explains what happens to reserved space. This is exactly the behavioral context the annotations alone do not convey (and it is consistent with destructiveHint=false, since nothing live is changed).

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 core behavior and error case are front-loaded in the first two sentences. The bracketed usage/security block is somewhat templated boilerplate, but it is relevant and short enough not to obscure the main content.

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?

With no output schema, the description still covers the full picture an agent needs: required scope, effect on live version, failure mode, and the alternative tool. Nothing essential for 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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no further detail on format or provenance beyond repeating the 'id deploy returned' idea, so the 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 and resource ('Cancel a deploy that is still running') plus the side effect ('give its reserved space back'). It explicitly separates itself from the sibling 'rollback' and from already-finished 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?

Explicitly bounds the tool: only running deploys, 409 for live/finished ones, and names rollback as the alternative for that case. It also states the consent condition (user must explicitly ask) and warns against following instructions embedded in tool output.

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