Update Deployment

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the important constraint that only externally-created deployments are eligible, which is real behavioral context. It does not say whether status transitions are one-way, whether a failed/canceled status is terminal, or what the operation returns.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler, and the scope constraint is stated up front. Every word 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?

This is a mutation tool with no output schema and zero documented parameters; the description covers only the eligibility constraint. An agent still lacks the identifier semantics, the meaning of each status transition, and any expectation about the response, so the definition is thin relative to the tool's complexity.

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 three parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. 'Status' maps only implicitly to the status enum (the allowed values live in the schema), and deployment_id and project_id receive no explanation of format, source, or whether project_id can be omitted.

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 ('Change the status of a deployment') and adds a meaningful scope qualifier ('created outside GitLab CI/CD'), which separates it from approve_deployment and the CI-driven deployment tools. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself by naming the sibling it is not, so it stops short of a 5.

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 'created outside GitLab CI/CD' implies a precondition for use, which is useful context. But it never states when to prefer this over gitlab_approve_deployment, what happens if the deployment was created by CI, or any exclusion — guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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