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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true, readOnly=false, openWorld=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond them: it applies live or stages into a failed source snapshot and does not start a deployment — a real behavioral distinction. It does not disclose reversibility of deletions, batch limits (20 upload IDs / 500 paths), or partial-failure behavior, so it stops short of full 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?

Front-loads the action, then parameter usage, then behavioral caveat, then the pointer to instructions — a logical order with little waste. The trailing 'MCP version 2.12.' sentence is terse to the point of being cryptic without the schema, but it does serve the version parameter.

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 mutation tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, this tells an agent enough to invoke it: what it changes, both operating modes, and that it won't deploy. Gaps are the mechanics of path matching, partial failure, and whether deletions are recoverable.

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 25% (only mcp_version is documented), so the description must carry the load, and it does add meaning for app_id, resource_upload_ids ('completed'), and delete_paths. However it gives no format for the paths/IDs, no indication that resource_upload_ids is required-min-1 when supplied, and no note of the array caps.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: update an existing app's resources, with the concrete mechanisms (replace matching paths, delete paths). It also points to get_resource_upload_instructions for workflow, which separates it from upload_resources and get_upload_status, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings as alternatives.

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?

Explains the two modes of use ('completed resource_upload_ids to replace matching paths, delete_paths to remove resources, or both') and defers the end-to-end workflow to get_resource_upload_instructions. What's missing is an explicit when-not-to-use (e.g., use upload_resources first to obtain upload IDs), which is only implied by 'completed'.

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