update_deployment_script

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. 'Update' implies mutation, but the description does not state whether the script is overwritten, validated, or triggers side effects like redeployment. No mention of permissions or reversibility.

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 a single sentence without fluff, but it is overly minimal for a mutation tool with three required parameters. While concise, it sacrifices necessary detail.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context about the update process, such as what happens after updating, validation, or prerequisites. The current description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, already explaining each parameter (serverId, siteId, content). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score 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 clearly states the verb 'update' and the resource 'deployment script', indicating the tool modifies the script for a site. This distinguishes it from read-only tools like 'get_deployment_script' and deployment tools like 'deploy_site'. However, it does not explicitly mention the server context, which is implied by the parameters.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_deployment_script', 'reset_deployment_state', or 'deploy_site'. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or situations where this tool should be avoided.

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