Dispatch an explicitly authorized deployment to Harness

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

Annotations already declare destructive/openWorld/non-idempotent, but the description adds real context: rollback on definite failure, a JSON receipt, preservation of unknown operation IDs, and an explicit authorization requirement. This meaningfully exceeds what the annotations convey, though return/pagination details are only lightly covered.

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?

A single dense paragraph that front-loads the core action before the caveats. Every sentence is doing work, though the phrasing is quite packed and would benefit from light structure.

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 20-param destructive tool with no output schema, the description explains the execution/rollback flow and the receipt-based verification path, which is helpful. But it leaves most of the parameter surface unexplained, so it is only partially complete.

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?

With 20 parameters and only 5% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden but does not compensate. It loosely gestures at backups, mapped files, and listed operations but gives no guidance on required fields like authorizationBasis, idempotencyKey, or the externalPaths/writePaths semantics.

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: 'Execute the complete deployment manifest through the EXISTING Harness native agent,' with scope (backups, files, service/remote ops, verification, rollback). It implicitly separates itself from preparation tools via 'Preparation is not proof of deployment,' though it doesn't name plan_deployment 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?

Gives a precondition ('Require task-specific user authorization') and follow-up guidance ('keep wait_run to terminal and independently read the receipt'), plus a caution ('never blindly replay'). However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this over plan_deployment or other alternatives, so usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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