Redeploy with New Version

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

Annotations only carry openWorldHint, not a readOnly or destructive hint, so the description must disclose side effects. It says 'redeploy' and 'update/rollback,' but does not say whether the existing deployment is replaced in place, whether the same deployment ID remains valid, or what happens to the previous version.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded before the use cases. Every sentence contributes.

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?

Given the simple schema and full parameter descriptions, the definition is mostly sufficient. However, there is no version parameter, so an agent may need to know how the 'new project version' is selected or whether the project must be saved/published first; the description leaves that implicit.

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% and each parameter already has a meaningful description, so the bar is met by the schema. The description adds no parameter-level details, which is acceptable at the baseline.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+object: 'Redeploy an existing deployment with a new project version.' The second sentence makes the scoped use cases explicit (update to newer version, rollback to previous), and 'existing deployment' distinguishes it from deploy-style siblings like openl_deploy_project.

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?

States exactly when to use it: 'Use this to update a deployment with a newer version of the project or rollback to a previous version.' It does not name an alternative or give when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is clear.

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