create_deployment

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

Discloses key behavioral traits beyond annotations: asynchronous provisioning with immediate 'requested' status, automatic routing of API calls after activation, per-org uniqueness constraint, and validation failure modes. Annotations (readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint false) are consistent with a mutating, non-idempotent creation operation, and the description adds substantial operational context.

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 dense but every clause adds value: action, asynchronous behavior, polling instruction, routing effect, auth requirement, uniqueness constraint, and validation guidance. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name or schema.

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?

This is a complex, asynchronous, mutating deployment tool with no output schema and no required parameters. The description covers the full calling lifecycle: prerequisites (owner API key, valid region/provider), immediate result (requested status), follow-up (poll get_deployment), and failure handling (deployment_exists, invalid provider/region). Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 four parameters. The description adds some context by connecting region/provider to list_deployment_regions and mentioning 'active organization,' but does not explain the nested config object structure or otherwise materially compensate beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Request a new isolated engine deployment for the active organization on the chosen provider and region.' It clearly differentiates from sibling tools by explicitly referencing get_deployment, delete_deployment, and list_deployment_regions, so an agent can distinguish it from related deployment operations.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: only one active/in-progress deployment per org, requires owner API key, unknown provider/region pairs fail validation, and deployment_exists means delete_deployment first. It also tells the agent to poll get_deployment until status is active, making the usage workflow unambiguous.

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