apps_script_update_deployment

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

Annotations already signal readOnly=false and destructive=true, so the description is not required to restate those facts. It adds useful context that the deployment ID/URL is preserved and that the target version is immutable, but it does not disclose broader effects such as impact on running executions or permissions required.

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?

A single focused sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds the key distinguishing outcome. Every word contributes meaning and there is no filler.

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 too thin for a destructive mutation with five parameters, no output schema, and no parameter-level documentation. It omits practical details about parameter roles, prerequisites, and what the result of the operation looks like, leaving an agent to guess important invocation details.

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 carries the burden of explaining the parameters. It only vaguely maps to deploymentId and versionNumber through 'existing deployment' and 'another immutable version'. It provides no guidance for scriptId, description, or manifestFileName, leaving those semantically under-specified.

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 uses a specific verb ('repoint') with a clear resource ('existing deployment') and states the outcome ('another immutable version while keeping its deployment ID/URL'). This clearly distinguishes the action from creating, deleting, listing, or getting deployments among the sibling tools.

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 strong context: use this tool when you already have a deployment and want to change which immutable version it points to, while preserving its ID/URL. It does not explicitly exclude creating a new deployment or updating content, but the intended use case is clear enough.

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