deploy_rehearse

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 mentions that the source project and plan stay untouched, which is good. However, it does not clarify what happens to the contained branch (e.g., is it created, left behind?) or any authorization needs.

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-loading the action and including a key behavioral note. Every part is essential and there is no unnecessary information.

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 no output schema, the description could elaborate on the rehearsal report format or prerequisites. It covers the core action and safety but misses context on return value and lifecycle of the contained branch. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 does not add new meaning beyond the parameter descriptions; it restates concepts like 'persisted apply plan' and 'contained branch' without elaboration on teardown options or project_id usage.

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 clearly states it runs a persisted apply plan against a contained branch and returns the rehearsal report, with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like 'deploy' by emphasizing rehearsal and no changes to source.

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?

While the description implies testing before actual deployment, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'deploy' or 'deploy_resume'. No when-not-to-use or alternative names are provided.

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