发布指定提交到正式环境

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that deployment is disabled by default, is atomic, and requires a clean working tree and a confirmation word. It does not detail production effects or irreversibility, but the destructiveHint and the release-script context cover the main safety profile.

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?

A single sentence packs the target, mechanism, and three safety preconditions with no filler. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 production deployment with no output schema, the description covers what is deployed, how, and what guards exist. It is missing an explicit statement of post-call outcome or rollback behavior, and the current-main versus specified-commit wording leaves a small but real gap.

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 already encodes commit as a 40-hex pattern and confirmation as the exact const DEPLOY_PRODUCTION; the description only restates these as 'full SHA' and 'DEPLOY_PRODUCTION confirmation word'. With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates, but it adds little meaning beyond the schema and the phrase 'current main commit' slightly conflicts with the commit parameter.

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 identifies a deployment action to production via an atomic release script, which separates it from read-only siblings like summit_get_site_health and from summit_prepare_release. However, the title says a specified commit is released while the description says the current main commit is deployed, creating minor ambiguity about whether the commit parameter is actually honored.

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 states concrete preconditions: the tool is disabled by default, requires a full SHA, a clean working tree, and the DEPLOY_PRODUCTION confirmation word. This tells an agent what must be true before calling, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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