platform_deployments

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention that rollback/restore/retire require confirmation and that qualification bypass requires a reason and permission, which signals some state-changing behavior. However, it does not explicitly state that these operations modify live deployments, that create/promote are destructive, or that any operation might have side effects. It also omits details about return values or potential errors. The description provides partial transparency but leaves significant behavioral ambiguity for a tool with multiple mutating actions.

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 not excessively long but includes a broad opening sentence about Arch creating and changing projects, agents, tools, etc., which is tangential and adds noise. The core information about deployment management and constraints is present, but the structure could be tighter by leading with the deployment-specific purpose and moving the broad context elsewhere. It is readable but not optimally concise.

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's complexity—17 parameters, 7 actions, nested version manifests, and multiple workflows—the description is inadequate. It does not explain how different actions interact with parameters, what deploymentId is required for, what the difference is between force and bypassQualificationGate, or how to construct a valid request for each action. With no output schema, the description also fails to set expectations for return values. An agent would struggle to correctly invoke this tool without additional documentation or examples.

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 description coverage is 65%, so the schema already provides descriptions for most parameters. The description adds some value by explaining that confirm is required for certain actions and that bypassQualificationGate needs a reason, which ties to bypassReason. However, it does not clarify the mapping of actions to specific parameters (e.g., create uses environment, promote uses targetEnvironment) or explain the semantics of nested version manifests beyond what the schema states. Overall, the description supplements but does not significantly enrich parameter understanding.

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 manages deployments, specifically with typed version manifests, and enumerates the supported actions: list, get, create, promote, rollback, restore, and retire. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like platform_versions and platform_workflows by focusing on deployments as the resource. However, it falls short of a 5 because it doesn't explicitly connect each action to its purpose or differentiate from closely related tools beyond the resource name.

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 gives some usage constraints: rollback/restore/retire require explicit confirmation, and qualification bypass requires a reason and existing server permission. This is helpful for deciding when to use those actions. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide conditions for when not to use it. The guidance is implicit from the tool name and domain, but not explicit comparison with sibling tools.

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