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

Beyond annotations, the description reveals important behavioral constraints: the 40-file/2MB limits, the content vs content_base64 split, the mandatory sc-track.js include and that publish re-adds it, placeholder contact info expectations, and the form submission mechanism with the no-mailto rule. This is substantial context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 dense but every sentence adds actionable guidance: when to use, file placement, limits, required script, placeholder rules, form handling, and next step. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids filler.

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 write tool with no output schema, the description covers input semantics, limits, required content conventions, and the follow-up publish step. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to correctly invoke the tool and understand the draft vs live workflow.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explicitly maps text files to 'content' and binary files to 'content_base64', and the path parameter already has schema guidance. The slug parameter is not explicitly explained, but the phrase 'a site's DRAFT' makes its role inferable.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Push files into a site's DRAFT' and clarifies the author is writing code directly rather than delegating to sitectrl's AI. It also names publish_site as the follow-up, distinguishing the write action from going live.

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?

Explicitly states the trigger condition: 'use this when YOU are writing the code yourself instead of asking sitectrl's AI.' It also gives post-condition guidance with 'Follow with publish_site to go live,' which tells the agent what to do next after writing files.

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