Trigger deploy

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it returns immediately after queuing, not after the deploy completes, and it explains the meaning of clearCache=clear. It doesn't mention error conditions or auth requirements, but the structured annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true) already set the mutation context. The description adds meaningful operational nuance without contradicting any annotation.

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 concise and well-structured, but it starts with a redundant 'Trigger deploy.' that repeats the title. The rest of the sentences each add unique value: endpoint, usage rules, clearCache guidance, and follow-up recommendation. Slight redundancy prevents a perfect score.

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 tool with no output schema, the description explains the return timing ('as soon as the deploy is queued') and directs the agent to the appropriate follow-up tool. It covers all parameters and usage patterns. It doesn't specify the exact response payload (e.g., deploy ID), but the guidance is sufficient for correct invocation and next steps.

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?

The schema documents all parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description enhances this by explaining the effect of omitting commitId/imageUrl (deploys branch tip or current image) and adding a practical use case for clearCache=clear ('first thing to try when a build fails for no visible reason'). This is valuable semantic context beyond the property descriptions.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Trigger a deploy for the service with the provided ID.' It also names the API endpoint (POST /services/{serviceId}/deploys), which distinguishes it from retrieval, cancellation, or wait tools. The purpose is unmistakable and differentiated from siblings like render_retrieve_deploy and render_cancel_deploy.

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 gives explicit guidance: omit commitId/imageUrl to deploy the branch tip or current image, use clearCache=clear when builds fail for no visible reason, and follow up with render_wait_for_deploy rather than polling render_retrieve_deploy. This goes beyond what the schema offers and provides actionable decision-making support.

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