Manage Deployment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds no context beyond those signals, such as whether deletion is irreversible, whether updates immediately change live deployments, or what authorization is needed. It is consistent with the annotations, so no contradiction, but it contributes no extra behavioral disclosure.

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 short sentences with no filler. The first sentence identifies the resource and the second enumerates actions; every sentence earns its place and the key scope 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?

The definition is adequate because the rich input schema covers conditional requirements and the annotations cover the destructive profile, while an output schema exists. Still, a reminder that list_deployments should be used to find deployment IDs, or a note on consequences of deletion, would make the context more complete for a multi-action mutation tool.

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 100%, with per-parameter explanations of action-specific requirements, such as deployment_id for update/delete, version_number for update, and description for create. The description itself adds no parameter detail, so the 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 states the resource (Apps Script deployments) and enumerates the concrete operations: creating, updating, and deleting. This makes it clear what the tool does and implicitly distinguishes it from the read-only sibling list_deployments, though it never names an alternative.

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 when to use the tool: whenever deployments must be created, updated, or deleted. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling to prefer, such as using list_deployments for read-only inspection or to obtain deployment_id values before update/delete.

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