Deploy a Micro

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

Annotations already establish a mutating, non-idempotent, open-world operation, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the build-then-validate pipeline and atomic apply semantics before the create-or-update lands. This does not contradict the annotations; atomicity is consistent with destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true. It omits the safety-gate behavior hinted by acceptLiveProducts/acceptPriceChanges, but the disclosure it does make is meaningful.

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 10-word sentence with verbs front-loaded ('Build, validate, and atomically create or update') and zero filler. Every element — build, validate, atomic, production, create/update — carries informational weight and 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is unnecessary here. However, for a production deployment tool with two safety-guard booleans at 25% schema coverage, the description leaves an agent guessing about what acceptLiveProducts and acceptPriceChanges actually gate. It also fails to clarify how this relates to micro_build or micro_rollback. The functional core is present but the guardrail semantics that safe deployment depends on are not.

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 only 25% — solely 'path' has a prose explanation in the schema, while the required 'slug' and both boolean flags are bare. The tool description explains none of the four parameters, leaving the non-obvious acceptLiveProducts and acceptPriceChanges flags (which likely gate risky deployments) completely opaque. With coverage this low, the description was obligated to compensate and did not.

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?

The description states a specific action chain — 'Build, validate, and atomically create or update' — on a specific resource ('a production Micro project'), which is far more informative than a bare verb+noun. The 'production' qualifier and the create-or-update semantics implicitly distinguish it from siblings like micro_build, micro_dev_start, and micro_preview. It does not explicitly name a sibling, which keeps it just shy 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 word 'production' implies this is the deploy-to-prod tool and the build+validate+upsert chain differentiates it from micro_build and micro_dev_* , but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. No alternatives are named and no exclusions or preconditions are stated. Usage is implied rather than instructed.

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