mark_vcs_deployed

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing a cross-entity side effect (releasing dependents waiting on a `deployed` dependency edge of this card), which the agent could not infer from destructiveHint=false. It also refines idempotentHint=true with concrete semantics: the same sha+env pair is safe to report and the first deployed_at stands.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every clause carries information — the field list, the side effect, the idempotency rule, and the precondition. Dense but no filler; slight density cost from the parenthetical id-location hint.

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-required-param mutation with no output schema, it covers the important unknowns: preconditions, idempotent behavior, and downstream effects. It stops short of describing failure behavior (e.g. what happens if the link is not a pr link) or required permissions, which a mutating tool ideally would state.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description adds real value on top: the relational constraint that link_id must be a pr link belonging to task_id, plus where to find that id. It leaves format details (40-hex sha, env charset) to the schema, which 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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Record that the change behind a PR/MR link is deployed', then names exactly the fields mutated (deployed_sha, deployed_env, deployed_at) and the side effect on dependency edges. This is clearly distinguishable from add_vcs_link (creates links) and get_task (reads link ids), so an agent can pick it 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 precondition — the link must be a pr link of task_id — and routes the agent to the right sibling tools for obtaining the id ('link ids are in get_task vcs_links and in the add_vcs_link result'). It does not state when not to call it or what to do for non-PR links, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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