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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description earns credit beyond that by spelling out the consequence: 'changes the live site's files' and that it pulls the branch and runs the deployment script. It stops short of noting irreversibility, auth needs, or rate limits, but the destructive impact is made concrete.

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-loads the WRITE marker, then a single dense sentence covering action, mechanism, and side effect, followed by the retrieval prerequisite and endpoint. No filler; every clause carries 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?

No output schema exists, so the description must stand alone for behavior; it covers the mutation, its side effect, and how to obtain the id. Annotations already carry the safety profile, so nothing critical is missing, though the lack of any rollback/reversibility note is a minor gap for a destructive write.

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% and every parameter already carries its own description and cross-reference (runcloud_list_servers, runcloud_list_webapps, runcloud_get_git_deployment). The description merely restates the git_id source, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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 ('force a Git deployment of a web application now') and immediately explains the mechanics: RunCloud pulls the configured branch and runs the deployment script. It is distinguishable from the sibling runcloud_force_deploy_atomic by naming the Git-deployment mechanism explicitly.

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?

It gives a prerequisite ('Get git_id from runcloud_get_git_deployment') and signals immediacy ('now'), but never states when to prefer this over runcloud_force_deploy_atomic or what conditions make a force-deploy appropriate. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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