k8s_update_deployment_image

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Update' implies a mutation, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether this triggers a rolling update, what permissions are required, potential downtime implications, or how the update interacts with existing deployment strategies. For a Kubernetes deployment mutation tool, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 description is a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with a clear, focused function and gets straight to the point without unnecessary preamble or elaboration.

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 Kubernetes deployment mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address critical context like: what happens after the update (does it return status?), whether this is a safe operation, what error conditions might occur, or how it interacts with deployment strategies. The combination of mutation functionality and lack of structured documentation creates significant gaps.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain parameter relationships, format requirements beyond the schema's 'e.g., nginx:1.21' example, or constraints on valid image references.

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 clearly states the action ('Update') and target ('container image of a deployment'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like k8s_restart_deployment or k8s_scale_deployment by focusing specifically on image updates rather than other deployment modifications.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are multiple sibling tools that modify deployments (k8s_restart_deployment, k8s_scale_deployment, k8s_rollout_undo), but the description doesn't explain when image updates are appropriate versus other deployment changes or how this differs from k8s_apply_manifest which could also update images.

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