deploy_verify_edge

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

No annotations exist, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It describes what the tool returns and the polling ability but does not state whether it is read-only (idempotent), required permissions, or error behavior. Some transparency but incomplete.

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, front-loaded with purpose and return, followed by optional behavior. No redundancy or filler. Every sentence adds value.

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?

While the description covers purpose and polling, it lacks details on what 'coherence' means, examples, error scenarios, or idempotency. For a verification tool with no output schema, more context would improve agent decision-making.

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% – all parameters have descriptions. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it reiterates polling logic already in parameter descriptions. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Verify gateway/edge release coherence for a deploy operation' with clear verb-resource purpose and specifies return contents. It distinguishes itself from sibling deploy tools like deploy (which executes the deploy) and deploy_rehearse (preview).

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 usage after a deploy operation by mentioning 'operation id returned by a prior deploy call'. It explains optional polling behavior but does not explicitly exclude scenarios or suggest alternatives.

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