Redeploy with New Version

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

Annotations provide openWorldHint and idempotentHint, lowering the bar. The description adds that it updates or rolls back a deployment, but does not disclose side effects like whether the old version is preserved or replaced. Adequate given annotations, but could be richer.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, no extraneous words. Efficiently conveys the key information.

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?

No output schema, and the description omits what the tool returns or any post-redeployment state. For a redeploy action, users might need to know if the previous deployment is replaced or kept. Adequate but not fully complete.

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 the input schema already describes parameters thoroughly. The description does not add new meaning to the parameters, aligning with baseline 3.

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 redeploys an existing deployment with a new project version, including rollback. It implicitly distinguishes from 'openl_deploy_project' (likely initial deployment) through the prefix 'redeploy', but does not explicitly differentiate among siblings.

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 explains when to use (update or rollback) but does not provide explicit when-not scenarios or alternatives. Given the sibling set includes 'openl_deploy_project', guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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