deployment_patch_deployment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds nothing beyond them — the PATCH path it cites merely repeats the annotation title. It does not say whether omitted body fields are preserved, whether the change is reversible, or what permissions are needed, which matters for a mutation tool.

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 the first two sentences are near-duplicates ('Update deployment.' / 'Updates the deployment with the supplied ID.') and the third repeats the annotation title, so little of the text earns its place.

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?

A simple two-parameter patch with a fully documented nested body and no output schema, so not much prose is required. Still, for a mutation endpoint the description could have clarified partial-update behavior and the effect on unspecified fields instead of relying entirely on the schema.

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 the body object documents name, iconId, and description individually, so the schema carries the meaning. The description only echoes 'with the supplied ID' for deploymentId, adding nothing beyond what the schema already provides; 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 ('Update deployment', 'updates the deployment with the supplied ID') and the PATCH endpoint signals a partial-update semantic rather than a full replace. It does not differentiate itself from the many sibling deployment tools (delete, get_by_id, action_request), but the core action is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus deployment_get_deployment_by_id, deployment_delete_deployment, or the iaas_/onboarding_ patch variants. No preconditions (e.g., deployment must exist, required permissions) and no exclusions are stated.

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