eng.trigger_deployment

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It fails to disclose important behavioral traits such as whether the deployment is destructive, requires permissions, is synchronous, or triggers rollbacks. Only the basic action is stated.

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, each essential. The first sentence states the core action, the second adds version detail. No redundant or irrelevant information.

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 simple deployment tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basics but omits behavioral context (e.g., side effects, async behavior). It's adequate but leaves gaps that an agent must infer or learn elsewhere.

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% and description repeats schema's parameter explanations (e.g., version as tag/branch/SHA). No additional meaning is added beyond the structured data, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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?

Description clearly states the tool deploys a repository to staging or production, specifying version. This is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like eng.run_ci_pipeline or eng.manage_infrastructure.

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?

Context is clear: use for deployment to specific environments. However, no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives are mentioned, leaving some inference needed from sibling context.

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