Verify deployment

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

Adds meaningful behavior beyond annotations by revealing that evidence is retained and the active revision is not changed. This is consistent with destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false. It does not detail storage or output side effects, but the key safety property is 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?

One tightly written sentence that front-loads the action and key constraint. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler.

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-string-parameter tool, this is reasonably complete: it states what the tool does, that evidence is retained, and that the active revision is untouched. The main gap is that, with no output schema, it does not clarify what the tool returns beyond retained evidence.

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 does not explain org_slug or deployment_slug. The parameter names and context imply their roles, but the description adds no explicit semantic value beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific action: run and retain deployment health verification evidence, and explicitly notes it does not change the active revision. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_workflow or list_deployments.

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?

Provides clear context: use this when you need verification evidence without altering the active deployment revision. It does not name alternative tools or explicit when-not conditions, but the non-mutation qualifier conveys an important usage boundary.

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