deploy_verify

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description usefully adds that the check runs on the host and that status is mutated, but it omits what happens on checksum mismatch (does the deploy fail, does the tool error, does status change to failed?) – the single most important behavioral fact for a verify tool.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action resource, zero filler. Every clause carries information.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the parameters are fully documented. What's missing is the failure semantics and any prerequisite state (deployment must exist and be in a verifiable state), which matters for a status-mutating operation.

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 deploy_id already documents its provenance ('Deploy id from deploy_push'). The description adds nothing about the parameter, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: re-check a recorded deployment's MD5s on the host, then update its status. That is clearly distinct from deploy_push and deploy_list in the sibling set, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus deploy_push or deploy_list. The phrase 'recorded deployment' implies a prior deploy_push, and 're-check' implies verification, but neither prerequisite nor timing is stated explicitly.

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