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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known; the description adds real value beyond that by naming the required role/scope (owner/admin, deployments:admin for narrowed credentials) and the operational consequence of disabling. It stops short of covering reversibility or how partial updates interact with unmentioned fields, so it is strong but not 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?

Three sentences, purpose front-loaded first, sibling routing second, return values last. Dense but every clause carries information; the permissions clause is slightly compressed ('for narrowed credentials') but not wasteful.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no elaboration, yet the description still summarizes them. Combined with explicit permissions, side effects, and sibling routing, an agent has everything needed for correct invocation.

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 the description still adds meaning: the `disabled` flag is tied to blocking new work, and the permission caveat hints at credential sensitivity. This is above the baseline 3 for fully documented parameters, though it does not explain the name/slug distinction beyond what the schema states.

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 specific operations (rename, enable/disable) on a specific resource (existing deployment) and immediately scopes the side effect: 'disabling blocks new work'. An agent can distinguish it from deployment_create, deployment_delete, and deployment_policy_update 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?

Explicitly routes the agent to alternatives with the selecting condition: deployments_list to find the slug, deployment_policy_update for execution limits or scripting, deployment_create for a new workspace. This is textbook when-to-use guidance.

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