deploy_updates

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the mutation profile is covered, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the reboot warning plus 4-hour save window for users, the async default that returns an instance_id at once, and how to poll or cancel. That is exactly the kind of operational detail annotations cannot express.

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 primary action leads, followed by the input contract, the reboot caveat, and the async behavior, in a tight sequence. Every clause carries distinct, load-bearing information with 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?

For a complex async mutation with no output schema, the description covers return behavior (instance_id), polling, and cancellation, which is most of what an agent needs. The gaps are the unexplained `wait_seconds` and `org_id`, which slightly reduce completeness.

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 compensate. It explains the tricky nested `packages` mapping (id of a list_missing_updates item -> versions[].version) and the `reboot` flag, but never mentions `wait_seconds` (whose default 0 is only obliquely implied by 'returns at once') or `org_id`. Partial compensation only.

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+resource ('Install updates now on the given endpoints') and situates it in the workflow by naming the sibling that supplies inputs (list_missing_updates) and the siblings that handle progress/cancel (list_automation_instance_endpoint_results, stop_automation_instance). An agent can distinguish it from all list_* siblings 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?

Explicitly ties use to list_missing_updates output and documents the reboot decision ('No reboot unless reboot=true'). It also names the exact follow-up tools and their conditions (check progress with list_automation_instance_endpoint_results, cancel with stop_automation_instance), leaving nothing to inference.

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