deployment_create

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and successfully discloses return values ('deployment ID and deployed definition keys'). However, it omits critical behavioral details expected of a mutation tool, including side effects, persistence guarantees, idempotency, or error conditions.

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 consists of two efficient sentences that place the core action first ('Deploy...'), followed by specific input requirements and return value documentation. Every clause earns its place with zero redundancy.

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 zero annotations and an empty input schema, the description partially compensates by describing expected inputs and returns. However, for a deployment mutation it lacks essential context such as versioning behavior, relationship to sibling retrieval tools (e.g., `deployment_getById`), or failure modes.

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?

Given 0 parameters in the schema (baseline 4), the description adds substantive semantic meaning by describing three expected inputs: XML content, filename with extension constraints (.bpmn or .dmn), and deployment name. Note: there is a mismatch between these described parameters and the empty input schema.

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 specific action ('Deploy'), target resource ('BPMN or DMN artifact'), and destination ('Operaton'). It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like `processDefinition_deploy` or `decision_deploy` by indicating support for both BPMN and DMN artifact types in a single operation.

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 implicit usage guidance by specifying required inputs (XML content, filename with expected extensions, deployment name), but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance regarding alternatives such as `processDefinition_deploy` for process-specific deployments.

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