deploy-changes

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for disclosing behavior. It only vaguely notes 'Context-aware: requires appropriate actor_role for production deployments' without specifying roles, error behavior, or side effects. This is minimal and incomplete for a deployment action.

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 two concise sentences: first states purpose, second adds key context. No unnecessary words or repetition; every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool is a deployment operation with no output schema and no annotations. The description lacks detail on return values, failure modes, authorization specifics, or rollback behavior. It is under-specified for the complexity and importance of this action.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all four parameters. The description adds no extra parameter details beyond the schema, so baseline 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 action 'Deploy changes to an environment', identifying the verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'managed-deploy', so it lacks sibling distinction.

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 mentions 'requires appropriate actor_role for production deployments', providing some context-specific usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'managed-deploy', nor does it give exclusions.

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