deploy

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It clearly states the FENCED requirement: 'requires --allow-destructive and confirm:true (code/credential write)', providing critical safety and permission context beyond the schema. This adds value without contradicting any annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and cleanly separates the safety note. Every word earns its place without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core action, selection methods, options, and a critical safety constraint. It does not explain dry_run or return values, but the schema covers parameters, and the absence of output schema does not require over-explanation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minor semantic grouping ('by UUID or tag', 'force-rebuild', 'pull-request preview') that maps to uuid/tag, force, and pr parameters, but it does not provide additional syntax or details beyond the already-rich schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'Trigger a new deployment' and identifies the target resource as 'an application (by UUID or tag)'. It also mentions optional force-rebuild and pull-request preview, distinguishing it clearly from siblings like cancel_deployment or get_deployments.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: to trigger a deployment, optionally with force rebuild or PR preview. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is unambiguous and distinct from deployment-related siblings.

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