deploy_verify_edge

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return report contents and the polling behavior of wait. However, it does not mention side effects, authentication requirements (beyond what schema provides), or rate limits, leaving some gaps for a read-heavy verification 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?

Two sentences efficiently deliver the purpose, return value, and a key usage hint. No filler or redundancy, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description partially compensates by listing report components. However, it lacks details on return structure, error handling, or prerequisites beyond what schema provides. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema definitions. The only slight addition is clarifying that `timeout_seconds` applies when `wait` is true, but that is already implied by schema. The description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 the verb (verify) and resource (gateway/edge release coherence). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like deploy, deploy_rehearse, and deploy_diagnose_url by its specific purpose of verifying coherence and returning a detailed report.

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 implies this tool is used after a deploy to check coherence, but it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like deploy_release_active or deploy_diagnose_url. It provides some guidance on the wait parameter but lacks clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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