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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds genuine context beyond that: it scopes the destruction to staged files only ('live site is untouched') and discloses failure handling ('cleanup is best effort and retried later'), which directly explains why destructiveHint is false. It omits auth/permission requirements.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the two facts that matter (live site untouched, cleanup retry). No filler, no redundancy.

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 simple one-parameter tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral facts. It could go further by naming the commit_deploy alternative, but nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 100% and the single parameter (deployId) is fully documented as the id returned by begin_deploy. The description references the begin_deploy session but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Discard a begin_deploy session and its staged files') and names the originating sibling, begin_deploy, making it distinguishable from commit_deploy and begin_deploy without opening a 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?

The purpose implies when to abort (abandon a staged session), and the 'live site is untouched' clause helps an agent decide, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus commit_deploy or what happens to the session afterward. Usage is implied 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.