routine_code_deploy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the dependency on 'routine_code_commit' for non-existent versions, which adds some behavioral context. However, it lacks critical details like whether this is a destructive operation, what permissions are needed, if it triggers downtime, or what happens on success/failure. For a deployment tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides essential prerequisite guidance, making it front-loaded and efficiently structured.

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?

Given this is a deployment tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like safety (e.g., rollback capabilities), side effects, or response format, which are critical for such an operation. The dependency note is useful but insufficient for full contextual understanding.

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%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters (name, codeVersion, env) with their constraints. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the relationship between parameters or deployment implications. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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') and resource ('a selected code version to the staging or production environment'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'html_deploy' or 'deployment_delete', which might have overlapping deployment contexts.

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 provides clear context on when to use this tool (deploying code versions) and includes an explicit alternative ('should call routine_code_commit first' if version doesn't exist), which is helpful. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use it compared to other deployment-related siblings like 'html_deploy'.

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