request_deploy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses that the tool enqueues a deploy request, requires human approval, and returns a request ID and approval URL. It does not discuss authorization, rate limits, or failure modes, but the core behavior is well described.

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 two focused paragraphs: first explaining the tool's purpose and behavior, second listing the parameters. Every sentence adds value and is front-loaded with key information. No extraneous content.

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 has an output schema (not shown but indicated), so return values do not need description. The description fully covers purpose, behavior (no deploy, enqueue, human approval), and both parameters. Given the tool's simplicity (2 params), the description is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to use it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It describes 'summary' as a required short description of what to deploy/why, and 'details' as optional longer context for the human approver. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's bare property names, though more detail on format or constraints would be helpful.

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 explicitly states it requests a deploy and does NOT deploy, enqueuing into a human-approval queue. It distinguishes itself from a direct deploy action, and the sibling tools (evaluate_deploy_gate, remediate, etc.) are clearly different in functionality.

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 clearly states that it does not deploy but enqueues for human approval, telling the agent when to use this tool (intent to request deploy) and when not (if immediate deploy is needed, a different tool would be required). However, it doesn't explicitly list alternative sibling tools for comparison.

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