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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: 'Takes effect immediately', the two rejection predicates with codes, and the non-obvious fact that undefined facts do not block deployment. It omits auth/permission requirements and confirmation behavior, so it isn't fully exhaustive.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and its immediacy, then the two rejection cases, then the non-blocking note. Four sentences, each carrying distinct routing or constraint information with no 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?

No output schema exists, and the description does not say what a successful deployment returns (deployment ID, status, etc.), which would help an agent chain subsequent calls. Otherwise it is complete: preconditions, failure modes, and the relevant sibling routing are all present for a 3-required-param mutation.

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% — memo, groupId, and versionId are all documented in the schema. The description adds no argument-level guidance (e.g., where versionId comes from, memo conventions), so baseline 3 is correct.

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 an ACTIVE (published) version to live traffic') and names the sibling it is not (lexq_deploy_schedule). An agent can distinguish this from lexq_deploy_publish, lexq_deploy_schedule, and the other deploy_* siblings 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?

Gives explicit when-not conditions with error codes: versions whose start date has not arrived (P-037) route to lexq_deploy_schedule, and past-end versions (P-058) are rejected outright. It also routes the agent to lexq_facts_unregistered for reviewing undefined references, which is a genuine alternative-selection rule.

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