Redeploy service

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

Beyond what annotations provide (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), the description discloses that the call returns immediately once the build is triggered, revealing an async fire-and-forget behavior. It also adds specific non-idempotence detail ('Each call starts another build, even if called again immediately') that reinforces and elaborates the idempotentHint=false annotation.

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 sentences with zero waste. The first sentence front-loads purpose and trigger condition, the second discloses async return behavior and routes to deploy_events, and the third states non-idempotence. Every sentence earns its place.

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 low-complexity tool with 2 simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, when to use it, async behavior, non-idempotence, and the follow-up tool. It does not describe what the immediate return payload looks like or what happens if the build fails, but these are minor given the simplicity of the operation.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it partially compensates: the word 'existing' implies the service parameter must already exist (not create), and 'current source' implies the deployment uses the current code state. However, it does not explicitly define what project and service refer to; the parameter meanings are mostly left to inference from context.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'trigger a new deployment of an existing Lizard service (rebuild and redeploy current source)'. The parenthetical clarifies the exact scope of the action, distinguishing it from a mere restart. It clearly separates this from deploy_events, which is for progress checking.

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 opens with an explicit trigger condition ('Use this when the user wants to trigger a new deployment of an existing Lizard service') and names a concrete alternative for a related need ('use deploy_events to check progress'). However, it does not explicitly say when NOT to use this tool versus the sibling deploy_restart, leaving that contrast to inference.

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