Generate Deploy Plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: 'does NOT apply', output is JSON conforming to an external schema, and the artifact is meant for review before application. It does not disclose minor operational details like auth requirements, but those are less critical for a read-only plan 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?

The description is compact, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence earns its place. The 'Use when' and 'Do NOT use when' structure is scannable and gives the agent direct decision rules without wasted text.

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 10-optional-parameter planning tool, the schema covers all parameters and the description covers output format ('JSON conforming to deploy-plan.schema.json') and the decision boundary for when to use it. It is slightly less self-contained because the referenced schema is not inline, and the distinction between clawops_up and clawops_apply is not elaborated, but nothing essential is missing for correct selection and invocation.

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%, and every parameter already has a detailed description, including defaults, omitted behavior, and refusal cases. The tool description itself does not add parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: 'Generate a Maker deploy plan' and immediately clarifies the key distinction that it 'does NOT apply'. This differentiates it from apply/up siblings without requiring the agent to inspect any other tool.

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?

It explicitly states when to use it ('when the user wants to see what would be created before committing') and when not to use it ('user has explicitly asked to deploy... go directly to clawops_up'). This is model guidance with a named alternative.

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