Is this API change safe to ship?

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, indicating a safe, read-only operation. The description adds value by stating it analyzes API contract compatibility only and returns a verdict, risk level, reasons, and action. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful context beyond them.

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 highly concise, front-loading the core purpose ('THE DEPLOY GATE') and then succinctly covering what it does, what it returns, when to use it, and what it does not do. Every sentence serves a clear function with no waste.

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 description explains the return values (verdict, risk level, reasons, action) adequately since there is no output schema. The parameters are well-documented in the schema. Sibling tools are listed but not explicitly differentiated. Overall, the context is complete for the tool's intended use.

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?

The input schema has 6 parameters with 83% description coverage, so the schema already documents most parameters well. The tool description does not add additional meaning or syntax details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score 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 it is a deploy gate that analyzes API spec changes for safety, and it lists the specific outputs (safeToMerge verdict, risk level, etc.). However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like compare_specs or explain_breaking_changes, which could cause confusion about when to use this tool over others.

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 explicitly says 'Use this before merging or releasing an API change,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It also states it does not modify code, implying a read-only analysis. However, it does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools for different needs.

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