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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, and the description supplies the missing why: cloud_ephemeral is a ~30-minute throwaway preview and needs platform enablement, while local hands the user a bundle. It stops short of saying what a redeploy does to an existing deployment or what is torn down, which is the key remaining unknown for a destructive tool.

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, zero filler; the action and both target options are front-loaded and the alternative-tool redirect is placed last as the exception. Every clause carries decision-relevant information.

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, an agent would benefit from knowing what a deploy returns (URL? bundle path? status handle needing build_deploy_status), which is left implicit. Otherwise the definition is complete for a 4-parameter mutation whose annotations already cover the safety profile.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the enum strings by characterizing what each target actually produces (managed Cloud Run preview vs. handoff bundle) and stating the platform-enablement prerequisite that governs the default.

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 ("Deploy a published version") and immediately disambiguates the two deployment modes by name. It also names the sibling tool (build_go_live) it is not, so an agent can route correctly without opening any 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?

Explicitly explains both targets, including the tradeoff (cloud_ephemeral is a ~30m throwaway preview requiring platform enablement) and the condition that selects the alternative tool for a permanent public URL. When-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are both covered.

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