komodo_update_deployment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and it says only that an existing deployment is updated and updated info is returned. It doesn't disclose what happens to config keys not supplied, whether the update is partial or full replacement, permission requirements, or reversibility.

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?

Short and front-loaded with the action, but the Args/Returns docstring boilerplate is generic padding rather than useful content; no sentence is harmful, none adds much either.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a mutation tool with zero annotations and a free-form nested config object, the definition omits the details an agent needs to invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it offers only 'id: Deployment ID' and 'config: Updated deployment configuration dictionary'. The nested config object (additionalProperties=true) has no explanation of accepted keys or structure, leaving the most important parameter effectively undocumented.

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 ('Update an existing deployment'), which is enough to distinguish it from list/get/create/delete_deployment siblings. It does not, however, differentiate itself from update_build/update_stack in any substantive way beyond the resource name.

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?

No when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as create_deployment or the run/stop_deployment siblings. The agent must infer the usage window entirely.

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