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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description is not carrying the safety burden alone; it still adds real value by stating deployment takes effect immediately and by disclosing the two rejection codes (P-037, P-058) and the fact that undefined facts do not block deployment. What it omits is whether the currently live version is replaced or retained, and any permission requirements — meaningful gaps for a destructive operation.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its immediacy, followed by failure conditions and the sibling routing. No repetition of the tool name or title and no hedging filler; each sentence supplies a distinct decision-relevant fact.

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 three-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the definition covers preconditions, immediacy, error codes, and alternatives, which is most of what an agent needs. The remaining shortfall is what the caller sees on success or failure and what happens to the previously live version, which the absent output schema leaves undocumented.

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% and all three parameters are documented in-schema, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above baseline by constraining versionId to a published/ACTIVE version and implying memo is an audit record of the deployment. It says nothing about groupId semantics or how the two IDs must relate, but the schema already covers their types and formats.

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 (deploy) plus the exact resource state (an ACTIVE/published version) and the target (live traffic). The parenthetical clarifies what 'ACTIVE' means, and the contrasting sibling lexq_deploy_schedule is named, so an agent can distinguish this from the schedule/deployable/publish siblings without opening a 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: versions whose effective start date has not arrived must use lexq_deploy_schedule, and versions whose effective end has passed are rejected. It also routes the agent to lexq_facts_unregistered for reviewing undefined facts, which is a genuine alternative-selection cue rather than a generic disclaimer.

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