set_deployment_image

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

Annotations already declare the destructive and non-idempotent profile, but the description adds genuine value beyond them: it discloses that the return includes previous_image enabling undo, that dry_run previews without mutation, and that no undo record is created for a preview. These are meaningful behavioral traits not captured by the 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?

Front-loads the operation type and risk tag, then behavior, then a clean Args list. Well organized with little waste, though the [WRITE][risk=medium] prefix slightly duplicates what the annotations already convey.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the key return contract (previous_image) and safety behavior (dry_run, no undo on preview). Combined with annotations covering the safety profile, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only the precise rollback mechanism is left implicit.

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 load, and it documents all six parameters in the Args block with useful detail: image format example ('nginx:1.27'), container scoping within the pod template, namespace defaulting, and target origin from config. It doesn't clarify the interaction between name/namespace/target beyond defaults, but coverage is substantially better than the empty schema.

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 ('Update a deployment container's image') that clearly differentiates it from siblings like scale_deployment, rollout_restart_deployment, and rollout_undo_deployment. The [WRITE][risk=medium] tag scopes the operation type immediately.

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 implies usage via the 'Inverse: restore previous' framing and the dry_run preview path, and points to deployment_get for the container name. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over related mutation siblings such as rollout_restart_deployment or rollout_undo_deployment, leaving routing partly to inference.

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