komodo_run_deployment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden for what is clearly a mutating action. It does not state permission requirements, whether execution is synchronous or returns a job handle, whether it can be cancelled with komodo_stop_deployment, or idempotency. The brief mention of 'result and status' is the only behavioral signal, and an output schema already exists.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, followed by a compact parameter and return breakdown. Minimal waste, though the explicit 'Returns' line partly duplicates the existing output schema.

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 adequately covered for its parameters and the output schema relieves the return-value burden. But as an unannotated mutation tool, it omits behavioral context an agent needs (permissions, sync vs async, cancellation via komodo_stop_deployment), leaving notable gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it identifies 'deployment' as the Deployment ID and clarifies 'options' as execution options with concrete examples (environment variables, timeout). This meaningfully exceeds the bare string/object schema, though the free-form options object remains only loosely specified.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Execute/run a deployment.' An agent can tell it is an action on a deployment. However, it does not differentiate from close siblings like komodo_create_deployment (which defines but presumably does not run) or komodo_stop_deployment, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. Given siblings that create, update, get, and stop the same resource, the description should say when this run action is appropriate versus create/stop, but it offers no guidance.

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