ateam_redeploy

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It warns this is a 'HEAVY OPERATION', details the steps (regenerates MCP servers, pushes to Core, restarts connectors, verifies discovery), and gives time estimate of 30-120s.

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 a single well-structured paragraph that front-loads the core purpose, then provides warnings, process details, timing, and usage guidance. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy.

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 tool's complexity and absence of output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, behavior, side effects, timing, and appropriate use cases. The verification step is also mentioned, making it complete for agent decision-making.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides for both parameters. The schema clearly explains solution_id and skill_id, and the description only repeats that info.

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 ('Re-deploy skills WITHOUT changing any definitions') and explains the detailed process. It distinguishes itself from sibling tool ateam_patch, which updates and redeploys in one step.

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: 'Use after connector restarts, Core hiccups, or stale state' and when not to: 'For incremental changes, prefer ateam_patch'.

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