deployment_redeploy

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully covers behavioral traits: it is a write operation with high risk, can drop unfinished requests, and supports dry_run preview. It lacks details on authorization needs or rollback, but the core behaviors are well disclosed.

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 front-loaded with the key header and risk note, then lists parameters efficiently. The docstring format is clear but adds some length; still, every sentence adds value. A slightly more compact version would achieve a 5.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main behavioral aspects and parameter meanings. It could include information about return values or error states for full completeness, but it is sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. The docstring provides clear, concise definitions for each parameter (application, deployment, dry_run, target), adding meaning beyond the schema titles. However, the parameter 'target' could be more specific about its default behavior.

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 starts with '[WRITE][risk=high] Force a deployment to re-apply new config.' which clearly specifies the action (force re-apply) and the resource (deployment config). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'deployment_status' (read) and 'scale_replicas_up' (scaling) by focusing on config re-application.

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 states the tool can drop unfinished requests and offers a dry_run preview, providing clear situational guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention when to avoid using this tool or compare it to alternative siblings like 'serve_deployment_list' or 'undo_apply', which could help in decision making.

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