manage_deployment

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

With zero annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does state the mutation actions and the return type ('Formatted string with deployment details or confirmation'), which is meaningful. However, it omits side effects such as the irreversibility of a delete, permission/auth requirements, and behavior on invalid action/parameter combinations, and the listed 'service' argument does not exist in 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 definition is well structured and front-loaded: a one-sentence purpose summary, a scannable Args block, and a Returns line. Each parameter entry earns its place given the multi-action nature of the tool, though the inclusion of the nonexistent 'service' argument and some redundancy in the lede ('Manages... Supports...') slightly bloat it.

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 multi-action tool with 6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description covers the essential invocation surface, including return format. It still misses edge-case behavior (e.g., what happens when action is delete but deployment_id is null), permission/side-effect disclosure, and any linkage to sibling tools such as list_deployments or create_version. The phantom 'service' parameter adds a small accuracy 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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: every schema parameter is explained and per-action requirement constraints are added. It also enumerates the valid action values in prose ('"create", "update", or "delete"'), which is important since the schema defines no enums for action. The phantom 'service' parameter and lack of concrete format examples keep it from a 5.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource combination: 'Manages Apps Script deployments' and immediately specifies the supported operations: 'creating, updating, and deleting deployments.' This makes the tool's scope explicit and conceptually sets it apart from siblings like list_deployments or create_version, though it never names them directly.

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 per-parameter usage constraints, such as 'deployment_id: The deployment ID (required for update and delete)' and 'description: Deployment description (required for create and update)', which help an agent construct a valid call. However, it offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_deployments, when each action (create/update/delete) is appropriate, or what prerequisites must hold before invoking it.

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