vela_deploy_application

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only and not idempotent. The description adds that the operation is asynchronous and returns a record name. This adds some behavioral context but does not detail side effects, permissions, or error conditions. Given annotations exist, the description provides moderate additional transparency.

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 concise with two sentences and an API endpoint reference. It is front-loaded with the primary action and returns value, with no wasted words.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema and parameter descriptions in the schema, the description covers the key aspects: async behavior, return value, and tracking suggestion. It could mention force deployment or error handling, but it is adequate for the complexity.

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 input schema fully describes each parameter with individual descriptions, so the tool description does not need to repeat that information. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, resulting in a baseline score.

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 clearly states the tool triggers an application deployment workflow asynchronously and returns an execution record name. It also mentions the corresponding API endpoint. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, the purpose is unambiguous.

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 guidance after deployment: use vela_list_workflow_records to track progress. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like rollback or resume, nor does it mention prerequisites or constraints.

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