yaaif_mcp_deployment_create

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose side effects. It only states 'Create an MCP deployment' but does not clarify whether this deploys immediately or just registers a definition, nor does it mention permissions, idempotency, or failure behavior. The existence of a separate deploy tool (yaaif_mcp_deployment_deploy) suggests ambiguity about the actual action performed.

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 three sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core action, then provides key constraints and preferences. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is clear and efficient.

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 tool with 17 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks details on required fields beyond name/image, return values, side effects, and prerequisites. An agent would struggle to call this correctly without additional context, especially given the complexity of the input schema.

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 schema has 17 parameters with no descriptions, and the description only explains transport_type, endpoint_mode, endpoint_host, secret_env, and deployment_method. Many other parameters (env, spec_id, mcp_path, slot_key, auto_register, container_port, auto_import_tools, client_secret_headers, registry_credential_id, spec_version) remain unexplained, so the agent cannot correctly construct inputs without external knowledge. The coverage is insufficient for a tool with this many parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create an MCP deployment' with two deployment methods (docker_compose or kubernetes_gitops). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like update, redeploy, stop, delete, and deploy by being the create operation, and it also mentions transport_type constraints.

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?

It provides explicit guidance on when to use certain settings: transport_type must be STREAMABLE_HTTP or SSE, prefer endpoint_mode=docker_name for k8s, and prefer API key secret_env over platform S2S. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools (e.g., when to use update vs create), though the name and purpose make the distinction obvious.

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