Change deployment timeout

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

Annotations already convey that this is a non-read, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds the useful side effect that longer timeouts reserve more credits, but it does not clarify whether the new timeout replaces the current remaining time or only affects future runs, and it does not address idempotency 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?

Two sentences with no filler: the first states the action and target, the second gives the key consequence. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 low-complexity tool with two required scalar parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally viable. However, it omits whether the deployment must already exist, whether the timeout change takes effect immediately, and what a successful call returns or implies.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds only that timeout_minutes is 'in minutes' and that deployment_id refers to 'a deployment', which largely restates the parameter names. It does not explain how to obtain a valid deployment_id or any expected format.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Sets a new timeout in minutes for a deployment'. It clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from deployment lifecycle siblings like create, stop, start, or wait. The minimum constraint is also stated.

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 implies the tool should be used to change an existing deployment's timeout, but it does not state when to prefer this over create_deployment or whether the deployment must be in a particular state. The credit-reservation note is a consequence, not an explicit usage guideline.

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