yaaif_mcp_deployment_update

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry the burden. It discloses the GET-merge-PUT pattern, which is useful, and implies no rollout occurs until redeploy. However, it omits auth requirements, error behavior, and side effects beyond the config change.

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 sentences with no redundancy. Front-loads purpose and includes actionable follow-up. Excellent 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?

Despite a complex schema and no output schema, the description provides only high-level guidance. It lacks parameter details, required field note, and response format, leaving the agent underinformed for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, and the description only names a few fields (image/env/secret_env/endpoint) without explaining their semantics. With 17 parameters, many of which are nuanced (clear_endpoint_host, secret_env structure), the description fails to compensate.

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 (Update) and resource (MCP deployment), lists example fields, and distinguishes from sibling create/redeploy tools by describing the read-modify-write pattern and the follow-up redeploy step.

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 clear context for when to use (updating an existing deployment) and instructs to call redeploy afterward, but doesn't explicitly state when not to use (e.g., creation).

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