deployment_redeploy

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, destructive, non-idempotent operation; the description adds genuine value beyond them by flagging [WRITE][risk=high] and warning that unfinished requests can be dropped. It does not state whether the dropped-request behavior is avoidable or what the failure mode is, so it stops short of 5.

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 risk tag and the destructive consequence are front-loaded before the Args block, and no sentence is wasted. The standard Args listing is slightly redundant with the clearly named schema properties but keeps the entry self-contained.

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 4-param, no-output-schema mutation tool this covers what an agent needs: operation type, risk, side effects, preview escape hatch, and per-param meaning. Missing only a note on what a successful or failed redeploy returns and how long it takes.

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 0%, so the description must carry the burden — and it documents all four args, including the non-obvious target semantics ('Inference target name from config; omit for the default'). application and deployment are only described shallowly, so it does not fully compensate.

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 deployment to re-apply new config. It implicitly distinguishes itself from creation tools like model_deploy and disruption tools like replica_restart, though it never names a sibling explicitly, so it lands at clear-but-not-differentiated.

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?

Gives one actionable when: use dry_run=True to preview before applying. It does not say when to prefer this over replica_restart, model_deploy, or scale_* siblings, nor what prerequisites (e.g. config already changed) must hold, leaving the selection decision mostly to inference.

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