railway_redeploy

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 ('trigger redeployment') but lacks critical details: whether this requires specific permissions, if it's destructive to current deployments, what happens during redeployment (e.g., downtime), rate limits, or expected response format. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word contributing to understanding 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 ('trigger redeployment') with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address behavioral aspects like safety, permissions, or response expectations, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use it correctly in context with sibling tools.

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%, with the single parameter 'service' fully documented in the schema (including enum values). The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the significance of the service choices or redeployment implications per service, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('trigger redeployment') and resource ('Railway service'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'railway_status' or 'railway_set_variable' beyond the redeployment action, which prevents a perfect score.

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, such as 'railway_status' for checking deployment state or 'railway_set_variable' for configuration changes. There's no mention of prerequisites, consequences, or appropriate contexts for redeployment.

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