openl Redeploy Project

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

The description accurately describes the tool as updating a deployment, which aligns with the idempotentHint annotation (repeated redeploys with same version likely have no additional effect) and openWorldHint (results depend on deployment state). However, it does not disclose potential side effects like dropping old connections or requiring downtime, which would be valuable for a redeploy action.

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 two sentences: first stating the purpose, second elaborating on use cases. Every word contributes meaning, and the critical 'redeploy' action is front-loaded. No unnecessary detail.

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 no output schema, the description covers the core functionality well. The response_format parameter handles output variety. However, it does not explain the redeployment flow (e.g., whether it's synchronous, how to monitor progress), which an agent might need for complex use cases.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying exact source for IDs (e.g., 'deploymentId from list_deployments response', 'projectId exact value from openl_list_projects()') and providing realistic examples for the comment parameter, helping the agent avoid common errors.

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 it redeploys an existing deployment with a new project version, distinguishing it from the sibling tool openl_deploy_project (which likely creates initial deployments). The verb 'redeploy' paired with specific resources (deployment, project version) makes purpose clear.

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 says 'Use this to update a deployment with a newer version or rollback,' providing basic when-to-use guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it (e.g., for first-time deployment use openl_deploy_project) or list alternatives, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names.

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