delimit_deploy_plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool auto-chains a security audit and governance evaluation and halts on critical security findings. This adds useful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose and then key behaviors. Every sentence adds value with no 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 has 3 parameters and many sibling tools, the description covers main behavioral aspects (planning, auto-chaining, halting) but omits parameter explanations and does not clarify what the output (plan) contains or how it relates to execution steps. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 0%, yet the description provides no information about the three parameters (app, env, git_ref). It fails to compensate for the coverage gap, leaving the agent without guidance on parameter meaning.

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 clearly states the tool plans a deployment with build steps, and distinguishes itself by mentioning auto-chaining of security audit and governance evaluation, which differentiates it from siblings like delimit_deploy_build or delimit_deploy_publish.

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 implies this tool is used before actual deployment to plan and run preflight checks, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like delimit_deploy_build or delimit_release_plan, nor does it provide when-not or prerequisites.

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