Prepare and validate a bounded deployment plan

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, but the description adds substantive context beyond them: checks are instructions that 'have NOT run,' the tool validates scopes and operator policy, and it 'never grants approval.' This is meaningful for a plan-only tool and is fully consistent with readOnlyHint=true.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core read-only purpose front-loaded, followed by validation scope and the key negative guarantee. No filler; every clause adds a distinct fact.

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?

With no output schema and a 12-parameter contract, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior and the meaning of the plan it builds. It stops short of describing the return shape or persistence of the plan/receipt, and says nothing about workspace, objective, or path-scoping inputs.

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% across 12 parameters, so the description carries the burden. It meaningfully maps seven of them (files, backupDirectory, preflightChecks, applySteps, verificationChecks, rollbackSteps, receiptPath) to their role in the plan, but leaves workspace, objective, writePaths, contextPaths and externalPaths unexplained.

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 (read-only preparation and validation) and resource (a bounded deployment plan), and enumerates the artifacts produced: source-to-target mappings, backup location, preflight/apply/verification/rollback steps, receipt path. It implicitly separates itself from start_deployment via 'Never executes or grants approval,' but never names the execution sibling, so differentiation is by negation rather than explicit routing.

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 'Read-only preparation' framing and 'Never executes or grants approval' imply this is the pre-execution step, so usage is inferable. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, no stated prerequisite (e.g., call before start_deployment), and no named alternative, leaving the agent to infer the position in the workflow.

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