Create Deployment

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

Annotations already indicate a destructive, non-read-only operation, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: the requirement that percentages sum to 100 and the supported traffic-splitting modes (e.g., 90/10). This goes beyond simple purposes to explain how the tool behaves.

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 short sentences that front-load the primary purpose and immediately follow with the essential constraint. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or filler.

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 destructive deployment action with no output schema, the description effectively communicates the immediate impact ('point live traffic') and the critical constraint on percentages. It could mention how to verify success (e.g., via list_deployments), but the core usage context is sufficiently clear given the schema coverage and annotations.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description reinforces the 'percentages sum to 100' constraint but does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, earning the baseline score.

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 ('point live traffic at') and clearly identifies the resource (Worker versions), differentiating it from sibling tools like rollback_worker or list_deployments by explaining the core action and its two modes (single version or gradual split).

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 context on when to use this tool—to direct traffic to versions—by describing both the single-version and two-version rollout scenarios. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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