hcl_live_deploy

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

The description adds real context beyond the annotations by disclosing that all staged devices are backed up first and modified devices are restored on failure. However, it doesn't say what 'gated' means operationally, whether a failed deploy leaves partial state, or that successful runs make irreversible changes despite the backup.

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?

Length is ideal (one short sentence, no filler), but it is front-loaded with secondary behavior instead of the primary action. It isn't verbose; it's misdirected.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with three undocumented parameters and no output schema, that one sentence is not enough. It should state the deploy action, the gate/prerequisite, and what the return conveys about success or partial failure.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, yet it only indirectly touches 'devices' via 'all staged devices' and says nothing about project_path or topology. The scope of the devices list versus the topology target isn't clarified.

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?

'Deploy' appears only as a noun ('before deployment'); the actual action of the tool is never stated. The sentence describes the safety net (backup and restore) rather than the operation, leaving the agent to infer from the name that this pushes staged config to live devices.

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?

No guidance on when to call this instead of hcl_validate_plan, hcl_plan_topology, hcl_full_build, or hcl_parity_report, all of which are plausible prior steps. 'Gated' hints at a prerequisite but doesn't name it or explain what unlocking the gate requires.

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