arm_quick_deploy

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Triggers quick deploy' without describing whether the operation is asynchronous, what the return value is, or whether it has destructive side effects. This is minimal for a mutation tool.

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 at one sentence plus the endpoint, with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the HTTP method and path. However, it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose, so not a perfect 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 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too terse. It fails to explain return values, side effects, or how to interpret the response, which is critical for a trigger operation. The tool likely returns a job ID or status, but this is omitted.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself adds no parameter information, but the schema descriptions are clear (e.g., buildNumber optional and means latest build). This meets the minimum viability threshold.

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 action ('Triggers quick deploy') and provides the exact HTTP endpoint, making the resource explicit. However, it does not distinguish 'quick deploy' from sibling operations like arm_trigger_build or arm_start_rollback, so it lacks full differentiation.

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. The description simply states the action without mentioning prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions. With numerous sibling CI/CD tools, this is a clear gap.

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