Redeploy service

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

Adds genuinely non-obvious behavior beyond the annotations: the call returns immediately after the build is triggered (async), and every call starts another build even if repeated immediately – reinforcing the idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=true declarations rather than contradicting them. It stops short of saying what happens to the currently running instance during the rebuild, which would complete the destructive picture.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose, return/async semantics, and follow-up tool. Front-loaded with the when-to-use clause and no filler.

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?

The async behavior and progress-check path are covered, but with no output schema the agent is not told what the immediate return contains (build ID? status object?) or how much time to wait before polling. Combined with entirely undocumented parameters, the definition is adequate but leaves meaningful gaps for a mutating deploy 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 description coverage is 0% for two required parameters, so the description carries the full burden – but it never mentions 'project' or 'service' at all, and gives no hint whether these are names, slugs, or IDs. The parameter names are somewhat self-descriptive, which prevents a 1, but the gap is real.

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?

Uses a specific verb+resource ('trigger a new deployment of an existing Lizard service') and clarifies the scope as 'rebuild and redeploy current source', which meaningfully separates it from a plain restart. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling deploy_restart, which is the most confusable alternative.

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?

Gives a clear triggering condition ('when the user wants to trigger a new deployment of an existing Lizard service') and routes the agent to deploy_events for progress tracking. It omits any explicit exclusion or comparison against deploy_restart, so the main ambiguity an agent faces is left to inference.

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