deployment

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

Given annotations only include openWorldHint, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It openly states that cancel and rollback are destructive ('confirm for destructive ops', 'rollback requires confirm:true'), preflight is read-only, and reveal is opt-in. This goes beyond annotations and adds meaningful safety context, though it does not detail watch or logs behavior.

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 well-structured and efficient: an overview sentence, a compact action list with parameter signatures, and a safety note. Every line carries distinct information with no redundancy, making it easy to parse despite the breadth of actions.

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?

With 25 parameters, an output schema, and 7 actions, the description provides a comprehensive overview, action signatures, and safety caveats. It does not delve into when to prefer one action over another (e.g., watch vs. logs), but the schema and output schema fill many gaps. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke actions 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?

Although schema coverage is 100% (baseline 3), the description adds value by grouping parameters into action signatures and clarifying alternative inputs (e.g., 'deployment_uuid|application_uuid' for logs, 'uuid|name|fqdn' for preflight/rollback). The safety notes also clarify semantic constraints (confirm required, reveal opt-in), enriching beyond the schema's descriptive text.

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 opens with 'List per-app deployments, get deployment details, or cancel an in-flight deployment,' which clearly identifies the tool as deployment management. The subsequent 'Actions:' list enumerates all seven operations, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'application' or 'service' by explicitly focusing on deployment lifecycle.

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 contextual usage guidance through the 'Safety:' note, indicating that confirm is required for destructive operations, preflight is advisory read-only, and rollback requires confirm:true. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternative tool references, but the action names and parameter lists imply appropriate scenarios, giving clear context without exclusions.

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