deploy_tickets

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses useful behavior: one-shot deployment, polling until a build number is assigned, timeout behavior, and environment-scoped defaults. It does not mention auth needs or explicit side effects, but the deploy semantics make mutation evident.

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?

Well structured: a one-line summary, trigger examples, then scannable Args entries. Every sentence adds operational value, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 an 8-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is nearly complete: it covers usage, defaults, aliases, and polling behavior. The main gaps are the unexplained allow_mr_purpose parameter and the absence of an explicit statement about what the tool returns.

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, and it largely does: tickets separators, environment aliases, scope values, branch defaults, install_dependencies override, wait, and timeout are all explained. The only undocumented parameter is allow_mr_purpose, which leaves a real ambiguity.

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 precise verb and resource: 'deploy by ticket URL(s) + environment.' The one-line summary plus concrete examples make it unambiguous what the tool does and distinguish it from generic build/deploy siblings.

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?

Includes an explicit 'Use when...' block with realistic user phrasings, so an agent can identify when to invoke it. It does not name alternative sibling tools or explain when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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