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

Annotations already flag this as a destructive write, but the description adds critical behavioral details beyond them: per-call file limits (40), per-file size limit (2 MB), validation behavior ('a file that fails is refused and comes back in "refused" ... other files in the same call still write'), required analytics script inclusion, and site-level invariants. This is unusually rich context for a mutation tool.

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 long but front-loaded with the most important routing instruction ('Call get_site_context first') and the key alternative (patch_site_file). Nearly every sentence carries actionable information, though the density is high and a couple of site-rule details could be skimmed.

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 complexity of writing validated site files, the lack of an output schema, and the destructive nature of the operation, the description covers all the decision-critical aspects: prerequisites, limits, validation/refusal behavior, content-type routing, required page invariants, and the recommended follow-up (publish_site).

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 reported at 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning and does: it explains that text files belong in 'content' while binary files (images/fonts) belong in 'content_base64,' and that overwriting an existing .html requires base_hash. These distinctions are not fully captured by the input schema and materially affect correct invocation.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Push NEW files (HTML/CSS/JS/images) into a site's DRAFT.' It immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling patch_site_file, so an agent can tell when to use which without opening either schema.

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?

It gives explicit routing guidance: 'Call get_site_context first,' 'To CHANGE an existing page use patch_site_file instead,' and 'overwriting an existing .html needs base_hash from read_site_file.' It also clarifies the authoring scenario ('when YOU are writing the code yourself instead of asking sitectrl's AI').

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