Deploy a game server

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

It discloses an important behavioral trait not available in the annotations: the deployment is asynchronous and the returned request_id is not yet a usable address. It also surfaces the need to clean up test deployments, which is valuable guidance beyond openWorldHint/idempotentHint.

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?

Compact and efficient: three sentences deliver purpose, async behavior, follow-up call, and cleanup guidance. Each sentence earns its place, and the most important workflow step is clearly front-loaded.

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 that all seven parameters are fully documented in the schema and there is no output schema, the description properly provides the missing context: return value (request_id), asynchronous behavior, the next step (wait_for_deployment), and the need to stop test deployments. Nothing essential is missing.

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 input schema already explains every parameter. The description slightly reinforces 'application version' and 'players you specify' but does not add substantial new meaning about the parameters or how they interact.

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 opens with a specific action, 'start one containerized instance of an application version', and clarifies geo-placement ('placed near the players you specify'). It is clearly a deployment creation tool and is easily distinguished from sibling tools like edgegap_wait_for_deployment, edgegap_list_deployments, and edgegap_stop_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?

It explicitly tells the agent to follow this call with edgegap_wait_for_deployment for connection details, and explains the timing caveat: it returns immediately, the server is still starting, no connection details yet. It also warns to always stop test deployments, which is concrete operational guidance.

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