deploy

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a critical behavior: the pipeline verifies the receipt before releasing anything, which is a gating mechanism. However, it does not disclose other important traits such as whether the deployment is asynchronous, what side effects occur, or what happens on failure. The single behavioral detail is useful but incomplete.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the primary action and follow up with the critical receipt requirement. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundant or vague language.

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?

The tool is a deployment operation with six parameters and no output schema, yet the description does not explain what the tool returns or how the receipt is obtained. While the schema documents all parameters well, the missing information about return values and the receipt issuance workflow leaves gaps. For a complex operation like deployment, a score of 3 reflects the incomplete context.

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 schema provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all parameters, including the note that the built commit is `sha` not `branch`, and that `receipt_id` is injected by the gateway. The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema. With full schema coverage, a baseline 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: deploying a specific commit through a deployment pipeline. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the mention of the receipt requirement adds distinguishing detail. It is unambiguously different from the sibling tools, which are about resolving refs, listing deployments, getting deployments, and listing environments.

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 explicitly states a key prerequisite: a receipt is required and verified before any release. This gives clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternatives, such as using list_deployments to check status instead, so it falls short of a 5.

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