deploy_model

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses that it is a write operation ('recorded in the audit log'), which is key behavioral information. However, it could further detail attributes like idempotency or potential side effects.

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 well-structured with a brief overview, usage guidance, behavioral note, and parameter breakdown. Every sentence serves a purpose without unnecessary fluff.

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 tool with 8 parameters (2 required) and no output schema or annotations, the description provides sufficient context: purpose, usage, behavior, and parameter details, making it complete for correct invocation.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description includes a comprehensive 'Args' section that explains each parameter's meaning and usage (e.g., gateway_id disambiguation, env injection), adding significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 tool's action ('Deploy an AI model onto a GPU cluster') and distinguishes it from the sibling tool helm_upgrade for custom Helm chart deployments, providing a specific verb and resource.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('standard model deployments') and when not to (custom Helm deployments, directing to helm_upgrade), and notes that it is a write operation recorded in the audit log.

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