deployment_redeploy

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clarifies that the tool creates a new deployment (mutation behavior) rather than modifying the existing one, which is valuable. However, it fails to disclose side effects like whether the previous deployment remains active, whether running instances are migrated, or if the operation is idempotent.

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 with no redundant words. Every sentence earns its place: the first defines the action and scope, the second explains the underlying mechanism (creating from previous resources). Appropriately front-loaded and concise.

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 empty input schema and lack of annotations or output schema, the description provides the basic conceptual model (redeploy creates new from old). However, with zero parameters, it fails to explain how to identify which deployment to redeploy—a critical gap that leaves the tool practically unusable without additional context.

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?

The schema has 0 parameters (baseline 4), but the description mentions 'optionally selecting specific resources,' which implies the existence of parameters for resource selection that are not present in the schema. This creates confusion about how to specify which resources to include or exclude, making the description misleading regarding the tool's actual interface.

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 'Redeploy[s] an existing deployment' and distinguishes it from sibling tools like deployment_create by specifying it 'Creates a new deployment from resources of a previous deployment.' However, it could be clearer about whether this updates the existing deployment in-place or creates a copy.

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'from resources of a previous deployment,' suggesting use when you want to reuse existing deployment resources rather than create from scratch. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus deployment_create or deployment_update (if it existed), and doesn't mention prerequisites like needing a valid deployment ID.

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