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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds valuable specifics beyond those: it details the idempotent behavior (returns already_absent: true on repeat or never-existing ids) and clarifies that deprovisioning is asynchronous, returning status 'deprovisioning' with the deployment_id. These behavioral nuances are not present in the annotations and are crucial for an agent to understand the call's effect and follow-up actions.

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 three sentences, each with a distinct purpose: purpose, usage, and behavior. It is front-loaded with the main action and does not waste words. Though it could be trimmed slightly, every sentence adds essential information, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core aspects: what it does, when to use it, how it behaves (idempotent, async), and what it returns. It includes the relevant sibling create_deployment in the same ecosystem. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to make a correct call, despite being concise.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the lone parameter. It does so by referencing 'by id' and return of 'deployment_id', clearly indicating that the parameter is the deployment identifier. While it doesn't elaborate on formatting or constraints beyond minLength, for a single optional field this is sufficient to understand the parameter's purpose.

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 clearly states 'Request deprovisioning for one deployment by id', specifying a specific verb, resource, and method. It also contrasts with create_deployment ('before create_deployment when a deployment already exists'), distinguishing it from the obvious sibling. This is unambiguous and far from a tautology.

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 explicitly provides usage guidance: 'Deprovision with this before create_deployment when a deployment already exists.' This names the sibling tool and the condition under which to use this tool, giving clear direction on when to invoke it. It also notes idempotency behavior for reuse, which helps an agent decide to call it repeatedly without worry.

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