Redeploy project

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

The description discloses the 'down + up' behavior, implying a temporary halt and restart of the project. While annotations (destructiveHint=false) suggest no permanent destruction, the description adds context about the process. More details on side effects (e.g., downtime) would improve transparency.

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 consists of two concise, front-loaded sentences. The first defines the tool's action and purpose, and the second provides essential prerequisite guidance. There is no redundant 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (two required parameters, no output schema), the description covers the purpose and usage well. However, it omits information about return values or side effects like downtime, which would be helpful for completeness.

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 provides descriptions for both parameters ('Environment ID' and 'Project ID'), achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add further meaning or constraints 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 tool's function ('Redeploy a project (down + up)') and its purpose ('useful for applying configuration changes'). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like arcane_project_down and arcane_project_up by describing it as a combined operation.

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 explicitly advises when to use the tool ('useful for applying configuration changes') and provides a prerequisite ('Use arcane_project_pull_images first to pull latest images'). However, it does not explicitly contrast with other sibling tools like arcane_project_restart or container-level redeploy.

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