deploy_verify_edge

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions polling behavior, return contents, and timeout, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., whether it is read-only), idempotency, or prerequisites beyond a prior deploy call. This is adequate but has gaps.

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 convey the core purpose, return value, and optional polling behavior. No redundant words; front-loaded with the primary action.

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 medium complexity (4 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the tool's purpose, return contents, and optional polling behavior. Lacks explicit prerequisites or error conditions, but is largely sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds context about polling and timeout, but does not provide additional semantic value beyond what the schema already conveys. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool verifies 'gateway/edge release coherence for a deploy operation', specifying a precise verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like deploy, deploy_release_active, and wait_for_cdn_freshness by focusing on coherence verification after deploy.

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 usage after a deploy operation ('for a deploy operation') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like deploy_release_get or deploy_release_diff. No when-not or direct comparison to siblings is provided.

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