deployment_trigger

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates that this tool triggers deployments for code changes, configuration updates, and rollbacks, and it clarifies exclusions (e.g., not for database changes). However, it lacks details on potential side effects like downtime or error handling, which would be beneficial for a mutation tool.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by organized sections (Best for, Not for, Prerequisites, etc.). Each sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 the complexity of a deployment tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does a strong job by covering purpose, usage guidelines, and exclusions. It could improve by detailing return values or error cases, but it provides sufficient context for an agent to understand when and how to use it effectively.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how 'commitSha' relates to deployments. Thus, it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating for gaps.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Trigger') and resource ('new deployment for a service'). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly mentioning what it's not for (e.g., 'Restarting services (use service_restart)'), making the scope unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance with 'Best for' and 'Not for' sections, naming specific alternatives (e.g., 'service_restart', 'service_update'). It also lists prerequisites ('service_list') and related tools, offering comprehensive context for when to use this tool versus others.

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