update_deployment

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

Without annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: the dry_run parameter defaults to True and controls mutation, and the return value is a confirmation string. It does not cover auth requirements or rate limits, but the core update behavior is clear.

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 at about 8 lines, with a clear one-line summary followed by structured Args and Returns sections. It is front-loaded and every line serves a purpose, but the Args section could be slightly more compact.

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 has 6 parameters and an output schema, the description adequately explains parameters and return type. It covers the dry_run behavior but lacks details on error scenarios or prerequisites. Overall, it is sufficient for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 description adds semantic meaning beyond the input schema by explaining each parameter's role (e.g., 'The user's Google email address. Required.' and 'Preview deployment update without mutation.'). Given 0% schema description coverage, this compensates well, though some parameter formats are unspecified.

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 'Update an Apps Script deployment' which is a specific verb+resource. It is distinct from sibling tools like create_deployment, delete_deployment, and list_deployments, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implicitly indicates it is for updating an existing deployment by listing required parameters (user_google_email, script_id, deployment_id, description). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria.

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