Redeploy Assets

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: it clarifies that the tool creates a deployment that reuses previously uploaded files (keep_assets), avoiding a full re-upload. This directly informs the agent about the tool's side effects (no upload, but a new deployment is created). Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description does not contradict this; it complements it by explaining the resource-saving 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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and immediately explains the key benefit. Every clause earns its place: it states the action, the resource type, the reuse mechanism, and the typical use case. No fluff 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, all documented in schema) and absence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the main context: what the tool does, why it exists, and the specific settings it can change. It does not explain return values, but that is not required without an output schema. Slightly more detail on when to prefer this over create_deployment would improve completeness, but it is not necessary.

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?

The input schema provides 100% parameter descriptions, including enums for html_handling and not_found_handling with detailed explanations. The description adds a high-level mention of these two parameters as the purpose for using the tool, but does not introduce new semantic details beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 specifies a precise verb ('Create'), a clear resource ('a new deployment of an assets-only Worker'), and a distinctive scope ('reuses its previously uploaded files (keep_assets)'). It also mentions specific adjustable settings (html_handling, not_found_handling), which differentiates it from generic deployment tools like create_deployment or deploy_static_site.

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 a clear use case: 'useful to change html_handling or not_found_handling without re-uploading the site.' This implies when to use the tool, and the reference to 'reuses previously uploaded files' distinguishes it from upload-based tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of full guidance.

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