eng.trigger_deployment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Deploy' implies a significant mutating action, but the description does not mention impact, rollback, approval requirements, or any side effects on production. This is a high-stakes operation, yet the description offers no safety or consequence context.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no redundant words. Every sentence contributes clear value: the first states what the tool does, the second clarifies the version input.

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 deployment tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too thin. It omits critical context such as whether the deployment is synchronous, what the response looks like, how to check status, or any prerequisites (e.g., permissions, CI status). The schema covers parameters, but the description does not complete the broader operational picture.

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 complete descriptions for all three parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'version to deploy (tag, branch, or commit SHA)' adds no new information beyond the schema's existing parameter description, which already states the same options.

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 deploys a repository to staging or production, which is a specific action with a clear resource and scope. It distinguishes from siblings like eng.run_ci_pipeline (which runs CI) and eng.manage_infrastructure by focusing on deployment.

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 when to use the tool (when you need to deploy to an environment) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it relates to alternatives like eng.run_ci_pipeline. Usage is implied from the action described, not explicitly stated.

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