openl Deploy Project

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint: true and openWorldHint: true. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond that, stating the action deploys rules for runtime execution. It does not contradict annotations but also does not expand on potential side effects or additional traits.

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?

Three sentences cover purpose, behavior, and key parameter guidance without redundancy. Information is front-loaded and each sentence serves a distinct purpose. No wasted words.

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?

With no output schema, the description does not explain the return value or response structure beyond the effect. The response_format parameter is only defined in the schema. The description provides the functional outcome but omits details on what the agent will receive, which is a gap.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by clarifying the production repository naming convention with an example, which helps agents correctly populate the parameter. This goes beyond the schema's description.

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 tool's function: 'Deploy a project to production environment. Publishes rules to a deployment repository for runtime execution.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like openl_redeploy_project by focusing on initial deployment and specifying the use of production repository name.

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 only minor usage guidance regarding the production repository parameter (use name, not ID). It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like openl_redeploy_project or what prerequisites are needed. The context is clear but lacks exclusions or alternative tool mentions.

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