Manage Deployment

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description merely restates the operations without adding context about the consequences of deletion/update, required permissions, irreversibility, or side effects. No additional behavioral disclosure is provided beyond the schema.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and actions, with zero filler. Every word earns its place.

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 is minimal but the rich schema (100% param descriptions) and annotations cover operation safety. However, it lacks contextual guidance on selecting this tool vs siblings and doesn't synthesize the action-specific parameters, leaving some completeness gap.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameter purposes and conditional requirements (e.g., deployment_id required for update/delete). The description adds no parameter-level information, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 tool 'Manages Apps Script deployments' and enumerates the supported operations ('creating, updating, and deleting deployments'), giving a specific verb and resource. While 'manages' is somewhat generic, the explicit operation list distinguishes it from siblings like 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?

Usage context is implied by listing the actions (create/update/delete), so an agent can infer that this tool is for deployment mutation. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use it over alternatives (e.g., list_deployments for reading) or provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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