Report a deployment to Edgegap

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=false and non-idempotency, but the description adds real value beyond them: it clarifies that the report is a side-channel moderation signal to a studio's backend and that the deployment keeps running. It stops short of saying what the call returns or whether a report can be withdrawn, so it is strong but not complete.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose, non-effect, and usage routing, with the routing constraint front-loaded where the agent needs it. No repetition of schema content and no filler.

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 4-parameter write-adjacent tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effects, and sibling routing, which is most of what an agent needs. It leaves the response shape and any rate limiting unstated, a modest gap given annotations already cover the safety profile.

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 schema already documents reason, metadata, request_id and dry_run fully. The description adds only framing ('short reason and optional key/value details') and says nothing about the dry_run escape hatch, so it neither compensates nor needs to. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Report a problem with one deployment'), names the underlying API endpoint, and explicitly delimits it against what it is not ('does not stop the deployment'). An agent can distinguish it from edgegap_stop_deployment and edgegap_get_deployment_logs without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use rule ('only when the developer asks to report a deployment') and names an alternative with its trigger condition ('for a crash, read edgegap_get_deployment_logs first'). Both the positive case and the exclusion are spelled out.

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