start_deployment

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

Annotations already indicate this is not read-only and not destructive, so the description adds meaningful behavior beyond them: the CREATED status requirement, the provisioning action on the repository-derived target, and the need to poll for progress. This reveals an asynchronous state transition without contradicting the annotations.

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?

Three concise sentences, each earning its place: what the tool does, the required precondition, and the follow-up polling behavior. No filler or 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?

For a single-parameter state-transition tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential context: required prior step, status precondition, the operation's effect, and how to monitor progress. Nothing critical appears missing.

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% and the id parameter is documented as 'Deployment ID.' The description adds value by clarifying that the id must refer to a deployment created with create_deployment and currently in CREATED status. This goes beyond the schema without leaving any parameter undocumented.

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 uses a specific verb+resource pair: 'Start a deployment that was created with create_deployment.' It names the related siblings create_deployment and get_deployment, making the tool's role clear and distinct. The CREATED-status precondition further defines the intended resource state.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool: after create_deployment and only when the deployment is in CREATED status. It also tells the agent to poll get_deployment for progress. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools, but the precondition and follow-up are sufficient context for correct use.

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