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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: canonical formatting may create a new head first (an unexpected side effect), publishing is refused if the draft changed since the check, and the edit lease is taken implicitly. It does not say what gets destroyed or what a successful publish returns.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then side effects, then parameter contracts. Every sentence carries information; the telegraphic 'publishes head' phrasing is dense but not wasteful.

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, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers the preconditions well (check version, lease) but says nothing about the result of publishing — whether it triggers a deployment, returns a deployment id, or how it relates to deployment_ensure. An agent knows how to call it safely but not what to do afterward.

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 coverage is 67% and the description restates the `version` contract ('the version the check returned') and the `leaseToken` auto-acquire behavior, both of which are already documented in the schema. `websiteId` is undocumented in either place, though its meaning is self-evident. Adds marginal meaning over the schema rather than new semantics.

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 compound action on a specific resource: 'Validates, builds, and publishes head.' An agent can distinguish it from head_check (validation only), head_restore, and published_rollback/unpublish. It does not explicitly name those siblings, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Gives conditional guidance tied to parameters (pass `version` from the check to refuse a stale draft; lease is auto-acquired when no token is sent), which is genuinely useful. However, there is no tool-level guidance on when to publish versus head_check first, or how this relates to deployment_ensure / published_rollback. Usage is implied through the workflow rather than spelled out.

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