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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutating nature is known. The description adds the permission requirement and the specific actions (rename, disable), which is useful context. However, it does not disclose side effects on existing work or how renaming affects references, though the annotation covers the core destructive trait.

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?

The description is a single, tightly written sentence that front-loads the primary actions and the permission gate. It contains no filler or redundant phrasing, earning top marks for conciseness and structure.

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 simple update tool with an output schema present, the description adequately covers the core operation and the critical permission restriction. It does not mention preconditions like the deployment existing, but that is implicitly required and not a significant gap for this tool's complexity.

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?

The input schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), including the semantic meaning of 'name' and 'disabled'. The description does not add any additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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?

The description specifies the exact operations (rename or enable/disable) on the deployment resource, and clearly states the owner/admin permission requirement. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like deployment_create and deployment_delete without needing to inspect schemas.

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?

The description provides a clear authorization constraint (owner/admin only) but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like deployment_policy_update or deployment_create. The intended use is implied by the actions, but no explicit 'use this when' guidance or exclusions are given.

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