deploy_prompt_version

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it states that deploying makes the version active, affects experiments/workflows, and that the previous deployed version stays in history. It does not cover permissions or idempotency, but for this simple action the key side effects are disclosed.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, and every subsequent sentence adds meaningful context: lifecycle background, error diagnosis, and switching behavior. It is somewhat longer than the minimum but every sentence earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter deploy action with no output schema, the description fully covers the important context: why deployment exists, when it is needed, how to recognize a mistake, and what happens to previous versions. It is complete for this tool's complexity.

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% with both parameters already described (prompt_id from list_prompts, version number to deploy). The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 first sentence clearly states the verb and resource: 'Deploy a specific prompt version, making it the active version that experiments (and other workflows) will use.' This distinguishes it from creating draft versions and other prompt operations.

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 explanation explicitly describes when deployment is required: to reference a prompt by version number in experiments or workflows, and the error symptom ('Prompt version X not found') indicates a forgotten deployment. The tip about switching the active version and preserving history also clarifies expected usage.

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