yaaif_mcp_deployment_redeploy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the operational mechanism and that it affects running deployment state ('compose recreate', 'k8s restart'), implying containers/pods are replaced. However, it does not mention side effects such as downtime, async completion, or how to verify success.

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?

Two short sentences front-load the action and mechanism, with the usage trigger in the second sentence. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 mutating operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives enough to decide when to call it but omits behavioral expectations such as whether it is synchronous, whether downtime occurs, and how to confirm rollout. The single parameter is simple enough that the lack of detailed parameter documentation is less critical.

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 sole parameter `deployment_id` has no schema description, and the description only indirectly clarifies it via 'existing MCP deployment.' This adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's string type, but does tell the agent the ID must reference an already-created deployment.

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 opens with a concrete action ('Roll out an existing MCP deployment') and adds the mechanism ('compose recreate or k8s restart/GitOps sync'). The qualifier 'existing' plus 'Use after update or secret_env bind' clearly separates this from initial deploy/update operations.

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 provides an explicit trigger context: 'Use after update or secret_env bind.' It does not name sibling alternatives like yaaif_mcp_deployment_deploy or give when-not-to-use cases, so it falls just short of full routing guidance.

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