Deploy Serving

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

Annotations only say non-readOnly, non-idempotent, openWorld. The description goes well beyond: it discloses the billing model (per replica per hour, worst case = price_cap × max_replicas), a preview-before-commit safety gate, and the operation_id idempotency contract (reuse across retries, new ID = new operation). That is exactly the behavioral context annotations cannot express.

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?

The core deploy/preview behavior is front-loaded in the first three sentences, which earns its space. The trailing operation_id paragraph is generic cross-tool guidance that dilutes focus slightly, but nothing is verbose 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?

Output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the risky bits (cost, confirmation, retries) are well covered. However, for a 10-parameter financial-impact mutation with zero schema descriptions, half the parameters remain semantically opaque, leaving the definition short of complete.

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% with 10 parameters, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully explains confirm, price_cap_per_hour, max_replicas (via the cost formula), model_registration_id, and operation_id, but leaves autoscale, min_replicas, max_context_tokens, share_idle_capacity, and workspace completely undefined.

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?

"Deploy an already-registered model as a serverless serving (inference endpoint)" names a specific verb, resource, and clarifies what a 'serving' actually is. It also implicitly separates this from register_model (which comes before) and from sibling lifecycle tools like scale_serving/pause_serving/delete_serving.

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?

Explicitly states the two-phase flow: confirm=false returns only a cost summary, then call again with confirm=true after user agreement. It also routes the agent to the models tool for model_registration_id or register_model first, and gives operation_id reuse rules including what to do after a timeout.

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