onboarding_post_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. The description adds only the organizational scope ('current organization') plus a raw POST path; it says nothing about required permissions, whether a plan must already exist, what happens on non-idempotent retry, or what is returned.

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?

It is short, but the same sentence is essentially stated twice ('Create an onboarding deployment' / 'Create an onboarding deployment in the current organization') and then a raw HTTP endpoint is appended. The useful content is front-loaded, but roughly half the text is redundant restatement plus an endpoint path the agent cannot act on.

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?

Annotations cover the safety profile and the schema fully covers the single nested body parameter, and no output schema exists, so the minimum an agent needs to invoke the call is present. What is missing is disambiguation from the near-identical task-based sibling and any note about prerequisites (e.g., needing a planLink) for a non-idempotent write.

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% and the nested body documents planLink, name, description, owner, ownerType and consumerDeploymentLink, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds nothing about the body at all, so baseline 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create an onboarding deployment in the current organization', which is a clear improvement over the bare name. However, it never distinguishes itself from the very similar sibling 'onboarding_post_task_create_deployment' (or 'onboarding_post_plan'/'onboarding_post_resource'), so an agent cannot confidently pick between them from this text.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance. Given the presence of 'onboarding_post_task_create_deployment' as a sibling with an overlapping purpose, the absence of any routing hint is a significant omission.

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