Contract Testing: Record Deployment

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

The phrase 'Record that... has been deployed' usefully clarifies that this tool records a deployment event rather than performing an actual deployment. Annotations already cover readOnly=false and destructive=false; the description adds only modest behavioral context and no side-effect or idempotency detail.

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 main purpose sentence is front-loaded and clear, and the format is readable. However, the inline parameter list largely duplicates the input schema, so it adds redundancy rather than genuinely new 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?

For a simple write operation with a fully documented schema, the required call shape is present and all parameters are described. It omits operational consequences, output/return behavior, and any note about how this relates to other environment/deployment tools, leaving the description only partially complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the parameter list in the description exactly mirrors the schema descriptions, adding no new semantic value. Baseline 3 applies because the structured schema carries the parameter-documentation burden.

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 opening sentence uses a specific verb and object — 'Record that a version of a pacticipant has been deployed to an environment' — making the core operation clear. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like contract-testing_record_release, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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 provides no when-to-use guidance or exclusions. It doesn't tell the agent when to prefer this over contract-testing_record_release or mention prerequisites such as the environment already existing.

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