Switch deploy branch

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds substantive context: the call triggers a redeploy as a side effect, returns before the build completes, and that every invocation starts a new build. That concretizes the non-idempotency in operational terms. It still does not say what happens to the old deployment or traffic during the redeploy.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition, then the side effect, then the async-return caveat. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

With a minimal three-param schema, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description covers the essential call-time facts: what it does, that it redeploys, and that it returns before completion. Only the post-call path (how to observe the resulting build, e.g. deploy_events) and impact on the existing deployment are unstated.

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% and the description never explains project, service, or branch beyond the passing hint that the branch comes from a GitHub or Lizard Git source. Required parameter formats and any branch-name expectations are left entirely to the agent.

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?

States a specific verb (switch the branch a service deploys from) and resource (a Lizard service's deploy branch, GitHub or Lizard Git source), and explicitly disambiguates from a local git checkout by scoping it to deploy configuration. An agent can tell from this alone that it is not a repo/VCS operation like git_status or repo_commit.

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?

"Use this when the user wants to switch which branch a Lizard service deploys from" gives a clear trigger condition. What is missing is an explicit exclusion or sibling pointer — e.g. that plain redeploys on the same branch belong to deploy_redeploy — so the agent must infer the boundary.

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