update_deployment

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

Beyond the annotations, the description explains PATCH-like partial update behavior and documents the is_enabled toggle semantics (false pauses, true re-enables). This adds meaningful behavioral context; no contradiction with readOnlyHint=false or destructiveHint=true is present.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, the HTTP method grounding is useful, and each sentence adds meaningful guidance.

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?

The tool has nine parameters, no output schema, and a destructive annotation, yet the description omits return behavior, consequences of destructive updates, and semantics for most parameters. It gives enough to make a basic partial update call but not enough for confident use of the broader parameter surface.

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 0% and the description only clarifies is_enabled and the generic 'only pass fields you want to change' rule. The remaining eight parameters such as name, hardware, queue_size, min_instances, and max_instances receive no semantic explanation beyond their titles, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 'Partially update a deployment' and maps to PATCH /prod/v2/deployments/{deployment_id}, identifying the specific verb and resource. It is distinct from create/delete/list deployment sibling tools and conveys the partial-update semantics.

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?

'Only pass the fields you want to change' gives useful invocation guidance and implies this is for modifying an existing deployment. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of create_deployment or delete_deployment, nor does it name alternatives or exclusions.

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