ncloud_sourcedeploy_start_deploy

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

Annotations declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which covers safety. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context such as whether the deployment starts synchronously, creates a deployment record, or can be invoked while another deployment is in progress. It does not contradict annotations, but it fails to enrich the agent's understanding of the operation's effects.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It is very concise and easy to parse. The phrase 'for a specific scenario' is slightly redundant given the 'scenarioId' parameter, but overall it is appropriately sized for the minimal content it provides.

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 deployment-initiating action with 3 required parameters and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain the overall workflow, such as whether approval steps are needed, how to track the deployment after starting, or what side effects to expect. The sibling tools suggest a complex lifecycle, but this description leaves the agent without enough context to confidently use the tool.

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 clear descriptions for projectId, stageId, and scenarioId. The description itself does not add any parameter-specific meaning, but the schema already documents all parameters adequately. 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 description clearly states the action: 'Start a deployment for a specific scenario.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the scope is clear enough. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like cancel_deploy or approve_deploy, though the verb 'start' is distinct.

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 vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., scenario must exist), whether approval is required, or how this relates to other deployment lifecycle tools. The context signals and sibling list suggest a workflow, but the description itself gives no usage direction.

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