deploy_infrastructure

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

Annotations indicate it's not read-only, not explicitly destructive (destructiveHint=false), and not idempotent. The description adds that deployments are based on recommendations or specs, but does not disclose side effects, error handling, or state changes. Given the minimal annotation coverage, more behavioral context is needed.

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 with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, earning 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 tool has a complex nested schema and no output schema, yet the description is very brief. It does not mention the 'validate_only' parameter (present in schema), nor explain what happens after deployment or what the response contains. This leaves the agent without crucial execution context.

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% for top-level parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context that the plan can come from AI or user, but does not elaborate on the nested structure or the distinction between services and network_changes, leaving the schema to carry most of the burden.

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 uses a specific verb 'Deploy' and resource 'infrastructure', clearly indicating the action and target. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'suggest_deployments' (which suggests) and 'validate_infrastructure_changes' (which validates), by mentioning the source 'based on AI recommendations or user specifications'.

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 usage when deploying infrastructure but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'plan_terraform_service' or 'validate_infrastructure_changes'. No when-not-to-use or prerequisites are mentioned.

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