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

Annotations already carry the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), yet the description adds real mechanic detail: it builds a new release and switches the live symlink only on success. That 'what actually changes' context goes beyond the structured hints, though it omits auth/rate-limit behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence prefixed with 'WRITE:' plus the endpoint path; zero filler and the write nature is surfaced first. Slightly above minimal but the endpoint string is arguably redundant with the tool name.

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 destructive mutation with no output schema, the annotations cover the safety profile and the description explains the deployment mechanics, so an agent has enough to invoke it correctly. It does not describe the response or failure behavior, which is a minor gap.

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% for the single project_id parameter, and the schema itself points to runcloud_list_atomic_projects for lookup. The description only restates the {project} path segment, adding no new semantic detail, 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 ('start an atomic deployment of a project') and adds the 'force'/'now' semantics, so the action is unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like runcloud_list_atomic_deployments or runcloud_deploy_git, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

'start ... now' implies the immediate-deployment use case, giving implied guidance. However, it names no alternatives (e.g., runcloud_deploy_git) and states no prerequisites or when-not-to-use conditions, leaving routing to inference.

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