Deploy Service (authorization-gated)

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

The description adds context beyond annotations by detailing the authorization process (AtlaSent check before deploy) and the result (permit_token on allow). This complements the destructiveHint and readOnlyHint 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 succinct with three sentences that front-load the key info (authorization-gated deploy). Every sentence adds value without unnecessary detail.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters and no output schema. The description explains the authorization flow and return of a permit_token, but lacks details about the token format or how parameters like change_window affect behavior. Agents may need more context for proper invocation.

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 provides descriptions for all 5 parameters (100% coverage), so the description does not add additional semantic information. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: it deploys a service with authorization gating via AtlaSent. It distinguishes from sibling tools which are about authorization management rather than deployment.

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 explains that calls are authorized before execution and denied calls are blocked, providing context for when the tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or suggest alternative tools for authorization-related tasks.

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