Create Deployment

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds one genuinely useful side effect beyond that: the environment is created if it does not exist. It says nothing about what happens when the same deployment is recorded twice (relevant given idempotentHint=false) or about required permissions.

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 short sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded and the side-effect caveat immediately after. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 six-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema description coverage and no output schema, the description is too thin. It leaves the meanings of 'ref', 'tag', 'status', and the optional 'project_id' entirely to an opaque JSON schema, and gives no indication of what the call returns.

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% with six parameters and five required, and the description explains only 'environment' (auto-created) and indirectly the commit. Required fields like 'ref', the boolean 'tag', and the 'status' enum values receive no explanation, so an agent must infer whether 'ref' is a branch name, tag name, or fully qualified ref.

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 and resource ('Record a deployment of a commit to an environment') and scopes it to deploys performed outside GitLab CI/CD, which separates it from pipeline-driven deployment creation. It also implicitly routes agents away from gitlab_create_environment by noting the environment is auto-created, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 phrase 'for deploys performed outside GitLab CI/CD' gives a clear qualifying condition for use. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., required project role or token scope), and no named alternatives such as gitlab_create_pipeline for CI-driven deploys.

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