liara_set_zero_downtime

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is to 'enable or disable' which implies a mutation/write operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like whether changes are immediate, reversible, require specific permissions, affect running instances, or have rate limits. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single, efficient sentence that states exactly what the tool does with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens when zero-downtime is enabled/disabled, whether the change affects current deployments, what the response looks like, or any error conditions. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters but doesn't compensate for the lack of behavioral 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters (appName and enabled). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides - it mentions 'enable or disable' which the schema's enabled parameter description already covers. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Enable or disable') and the resource ('zero-downtime deployment for an app'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'liara_deploy_release' or 'liara_restart_app' which might also affect deployment behavior, though the 'zero-downtime' specificity helps somewhat.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., app must be running), consequences of enabling/disabling, or when to choose this over other deployment-related tools like 'liara_deploy_release' or 'liara_rollback_release'.

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