create-fleet-deployment-upgrade

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

The description adds context that this is a write operation creating a deployment for upgrades, which aligns with the 'readOnlyHint' of false. However, it does not elaborate on side effects (e.g., whether it triggers immediately, if it can be rolled back, or if it affects existing deployments). The 'openWorldHint' is true, but the description provides no additional behavioral insight beyond the tool's purpose.

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 sentence that is direct and free of redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given that the tool has only two parameters, no output schema, and annotations are provided, the description covers the essential purpose and scope. It lacks details about return values or asynchronous behavior, but for a create action, the context is largely sufficient for an agent to understand when and how to use it.

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 already describes both parameters (filterQuery and targetPackages) thoroughly, achieving 100% coverage. The tool-level description does not add any new meaning or constraints beyond summarizing that the deployment targets 'matching hosts', which is already captured in the schema descriptions.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Create', the resource 'deployment', and the specific intent 'to upgrade Datadog Agent packages on matching hosts'. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'create-fleet-deployment-configure', which presumably handles configuration changes rather than upgrades.

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 implies the tool should be used when upgrading agent packages on specific hosts, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'create-fleet-deployment-configure'. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it differs from other create tools.

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