Deploy template

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false and idempotent=false, and the description builds on this by disclosing that each call creates another project, may incur charges, and that blind retries on partial failure are unsafe. That cost/non-idempotency/partial-failure context goes well beyond the structured hints.

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?

Four short sentences, each load-bearing: purpose, prerequisite, cost/non-idempotency caveat, and failure-handling guidance. The core action is front-loaded with 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?

For a non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, cost, and partial-failure handling, and hints at the return value ('inspect the returned project'). It could say more about placeholderValues shape and workspace requirements, but is largely sufficient.

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 only 25% (only 'template' is documented), so the description should carry more weight; it adds meaning for placeholderValues but does not clarify template format, projectName, or workspaceId. It partially compensates but leaves a real gap for a 4-param tool with a nested object.

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 (deploy), resource (template), and outcome (new project in the chosen workspace), which cleanly separates it from template_show/template_list/project_create siblings. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 concrete prerequisite (read template_show first, supply placeholderValues) and warns about cost and partial-failure retry behavior. It does not explicitly contrast with project_create or deploy_redeploy, so it stops short of naming the alternative path.

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