deploy_rehearse

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

The description explicitly states that the source project and plan stay untouched, which is a critical non-destructive behavioral guarantee. It also mentions a 'contained branch' and the teardown parameter provides cleanup policy. However, it does not detail permissions, error states, or side effects like branch creation. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden and does so reasonably well.

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 long with no wasted words. The first sentence defines the primary action and the second sentence adds a key behavioral qualifier. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is somewhat minimal. It does not explain the rehearsal report content, prerequisites (e.g., how to obtain a plan_id), or alternative tools. However, for a tool that is part of a deployment pipeline, the description covers the essential purpose and key constraint of non-destructiveness.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide. For example, it does not explain the teardown enum values or the role of project_id in metadata.

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 action: run a persisted apply plan against a contained branch and return a rehearsal report. It specifies the resource (persisted apply plan) and the outcome (rehearsal report), and the verb 'rehearse' distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'deploy' (actual deployment) or 'deploy_release_*' (release management).

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or suggest other tools for different scenarios. The usage context is only implied by the name 'rehearse' and the description of non-destructive behavior.

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