Manage deployments

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, but the description adds critical behavior beyond that: delete permanently breaks URLs/integrations, update merges config so omitted fields are preserved, HEAD deploys update live with every save, and the automatic @HEAD deployent cannot be deleted. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: domain definition, action-by-action semantics, edge cases, prerequisite, and scope. It is front-loaded with purpose and avoids redundant restatements of the schema.

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 five-action tool with no output schema, this description covers action selection, parameter semantics, destructive consequences, undeletable edge case, cross-tool prerequisite, and required OAuth scope. An agent can correctly invoke any action without needing to look up additional context.

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%, so the baseline is already strong. The description adds action-param binding: version_number can be omitted to deploy HEAD, page_token comes from nextPageToken, get requires deployment_id, update uses version_number and/or description with merge semantics. It doesn't add much for script_id or page_size, but the schema adequately covers those.

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?

Description clearly defines deployments as published entry points (web app, API executable, add-on) and then maps every action—create, list, get, update, delete—to a specific behavior and target. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like create_version and run_function by scoping it to the deployment lifecycle.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance per action: create to deploy a version or HEAD, list to see all deployments with pagination, get to fetch entryPoints, update to ship/rollback while preserving URL, delete to permanently remove. It also states when-not-to: @HEAD cannot be deleted, and HEAD is risky for production. The prerequisite via update_project_content and required scope are also stated.

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