update_auto_deploy_settings

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

Annotations already indicate a mutating (readOnlyHint=false) but non-destructive operation. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: partial updates via omitted fields and the requirement for user confirmation before invocation. This goes beyond the schema and annotations without contradicting them.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary action and patch semantics are stated first, and the critical user-confirmation warning is clearly emphasized and front-loaded.

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 simple three-parameter schema, full schema coverage, presence of an output schema, and relevant annotations, the description is complete. It explains the mutation semantics, partial-update behavior, and the key safety requirement, leaving no critical gap for an agent to call this tool 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by stating that omitted fields retain their current values, which is essential for correctly understanding the partial-update behavior of the boolean parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Update automatic-update flags for a deployment.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling read tools like get_auto_deploy_settings and get_auto_deploy_info. The addition that omitted fields keep current values further clarifies the operation's scope.

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 clear operational context by explicitly instructing the agent to confirm requested settings with the user before calling. It does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use the tool, but the update-vs-get distinction is evident from the name and sibling list.

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