ateam_redeploy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full weight. It discloses that this is a 'HEAVY OPERATION' that regenerates MCP servers, pushes to Core, restarts connectors, verifies tool discovery, and takes 30-120 seconds. This gives the agent a strong sense of side effects and cost.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds a clear warning about the operation's weight and duration, then provides usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place without 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 heavy operation with no output schema, the description covers what happens (regenerates, pushes, restarts, verifies), how long it takes, when to use it, and when to prefer an alternative. This is fully complete for the agent to decide and invoke appropriately.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters fully. The description does not add extra parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Re-deploy skills WITHOUT changing any definitions.' This is a specific verb (re-deploy) and resource (skills), and it distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly contrasting with ateam_patch.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use after connector restarts, Core hiccups, or stale state. For incremental changes, prefer ateam_patch (which updates + redeploys in one step).' This clearly tells when to use and when to use an alternative.

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