deployment_get_resource_actions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral detail — that it returns the *complete* list rather than a filtered or paginated page — but says nothing about return shape, whether actions are filtered by state, or authorization requirements.

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?

Short and front-loaded, but sentences 1 and 2 are near-duplicates ('Fetch available resource actions' / 'Returns the complete list of available actions'), so one of them does no work. The raw endpoint path is the only added information and could have been replaced by the disambiguation this description actually lacks.

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 two-param read tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description is adequate but thin: no output schema exists, and the description never indicates what a returned 'resource action' contains (id, name, form?) or whether the caller can then invoke deployment_submit_resource_action_request. The missing sibling disambiguation is the larger omission.

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% and both parameters are UUID-typed with '(path)' notes, so the schema carries the load. The description adds only the relational framing ('actions on a given resource'), not any semantics about what a valid resourceId resolves to or error behavior for unknown IDs.

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: fetching the complete list of actions available on a given resource, plus the underlying GET endpoint for provenance. The word 'complete list' implicitly contrasts with the singular deployment_get_resource_action, but it never names that sibling nor the near-identical deployment_get_resources_by_resource_id_actions, so an agent still has to guess between them.

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?

'can be performed on a given resource' gives a faint hint that both a deploymentId and resourceId must already be known, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not, and no reference to any alternative. Given a sibling list containing several tools whose names also combine resources and actions, this is a real routing gap.

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