Deploy Service (authorization-gated)

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows it is a mutating, destructive operation. The description adds context about the Permit verification process and that blocked calls never reach the target system, which is valuable behavioral transparency beyond 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?

Two sentences with no extraneous words. The key point about the authorization gate is front-loaded, and every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's protected nature.

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 description is complete regarding the authorization gating but lacks information about the actual deployment behavior, return values, or prerequisites like approvals. Given the destructive nature, an agent might need more context, but the schema covers parameters and the tool is described as an example.

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 100%, so all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information, so it relies on the schema. A baseline of 3 is appropriate given the high coverage.

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 name and title clearly indicate a deployment action, and the description confirms it is a protected deploy operation. It distinguishes from sibling atlasent_* policy/audit tools, but the description focuses on the authorization gate rather than the deploy action itself, so the purpose is not fully explicit.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is the tool for deploying services or any prerequisites such as approvals. The description only discusses the authorization mechanism, leaving the intended use case to be inferred.

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