Trigger deploy

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds important behavioral context beyond annotations: it polls until terminal status, returns log tails for failures, and warns about long builds. This provides useful operational detail not captured in the annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action ('Trigger a deployment'), immediately follows with the key wait behavior, and gives a concrete recommendation. No filler or unnecessary repetition.

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?

With 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is only moderately complete. It covers triggering and wait behavior but does not clarify the roles of other parameters or the full return value structure beyond failure log tails. More detail would be needed for a fully complete description.

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 only 13%, so the description must compensate. It explains uuid, tag, and wait, but does not address force, docker_tag, pr, pull_request_id, or timeout_seconds, leaving several parameters with unclear meaning. It partially compensates for the schema gap but is incomplete.

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 the tool as triggering deployments for an application, with explicit mention of identification by UUID or tag. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like cancelDeployment and listDeployments, providing a specific verb and resource.

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 clearly implies usage for triggering deployments and explains the behavior when wait=true, including practical advice to raise MCP client timeout. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative deployment-related tools like redeployProject, so exclusions are not fully covered.

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