propose_company_blueprint_deployment

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds the key behavioral trait that the deployment is not activated, which is not captured by the annotations. It does not describe whether a proposal record is persisted, but the idempotency annotation and no-activation statement cover the most important safety-relevant behavior.

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 one tight sentence with no filler and front-loads the verb and resource. It is concise, though slightly under-specified for a lifecycle operation; the compactness is good but not exemplary.

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 stateful, non-read-only proposal in a multi-step blueprint lifecycle, the description is too thin. It does not explain the surrounding workflow (propose then finalize/activate/cancel), how the four required parameters fit together, or what distinguishes this from the many related company_blueprint siblings. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but lifecycle context is missing.

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?

Only the candidate parameter has schema documentation, so schema coverage is 25%. The description adds no meaning for company_ref, project_ref, or idempotency_key, and merely repeats the SDK-sealing concept without explaining how parameters relate to the proposal. With three undocumented required parameters, the description should compensate but does not.

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 specific verb ('propose') and resource ('SDK-sealed deployment'), and explicitly differentiates from activation with 'does not activate it.' It is not as explicit as naming the exact finalize/activation siblings, but the resource and negative condition make the core purpose clear.

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 a clear boundary: this is a proposal and not an activation, so an agent can tell it apart from activation/finalization. However, it never names alternatives or states when to prefer this over finalize_company_blueprint_deployment, cancel_company_blueprint_deployment, or related lifecycle tools; the usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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