rollout_deployment_config

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states that it triggers a rollout, which implies mutation, but does not describe side effects (new ReplicationController, pod restarts), prerequisites (existence of the DeploymentConfig), or idempotency concerns. It lacks any detail on what happens on invocation or what the response contains.

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 concise, with a clear purpose statement followed by a compact parameter list. It is well structured and front-loaded with the core action. No redundant text.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the expected outcome, error conditions, or whether the command blocks or returns immediately. An agent lacks enough context to anticipate the effect or handle failures correctly.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning. It does clarify 'name' as 'DeploymentConfig name' and 'cluster' as 'Named cluster to target (empty = default)', which adds some context beyond the schema. However, it does not explain formats, allowed values, or how cluster selection works. It partially compensates for the schema gap but not fully.

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: triggering a new rollout of an OpenShift DeploymentConfig, and even gives the equivalent oc command. The resource is specific (DeploymentConfig) and the verb is unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like rollout_restart_deployment or rollout_status_deployment, though the resource type helps.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rollout_restart_deployment, rollout_undo_deployment, or scale_deployment. No exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual hints are provided. The description simply states the operation without explaining the decision context.

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