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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the description is not responsible for basic safety disclosure. However, for a mutation tool it adds almost no behavioral context such as idempotency behavior, optimistic concurrency via expected_last_revision, or what 'validate/save' actually changes.

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 short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified for a complex 10-parameter mutation tool. Brevity here reflects missing information rather than efficient communication.

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 high complexity, nested schema, zero parameter descriptions, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It does not explain return behavior, concurrency controls, async waiting, or how to use the required idempotency key.

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 0% and there are 10 parameters, including required fields like build_id, summary, and idempotency_key. The description only vaguely references 'source/routes' and does not explain key parameters such as expected_last_revision, homepage_move, removed_routes, or wait_seconds.

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 says it will 'Validate/save typed source/routes,' which gives a verb and resource, but the combination of validate and save is ambiguous and does not clearly distinguish it from the sibling tool builds_validate. The title helps, but the description alone does not fully establish the tool's distinct purpose.

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 only guidance is 'Verify previews separately,' which points to a preview workflow but gives no when-to-use criteria, prerequisites, or comparison to relevant siblings like builds_validate or builds_sync. An agent would have to infer the correct context from the tool name and schema.

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