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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description adds critical behavioral details: hardened one-shot pod, no SA token, no DB/Vault reach, NetworkPolicy-restricted egress, and atomic swap. These details enhance the agent's understanding of the tool's security and operational characteristics.

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 concise (4 sentences) with front-loaded action. Each sentence adds value: the process, isolation guarantees, and state persistence. No redundant information.

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 complexity (6 params, no required ones, output schema present), the description covers the core process, statefulness, and security context. It lacks details on output format or error handling, but the presence of an output schema mitigates the need to describe return values. Slight gap: no mention of rollback or failure scenarios.

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?

With 67% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning by explaining that buildCommand and outputDir can be omitted in subsequent calls after the first run persists them into Site.sourceManifest. This clarifies the stateful nature of the tool. However, parameters name and siteId are not elaborated beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's action: build the editable source tree in a hardened pod and atomically swap into the live dist. It distinguishes from siblings like 'commit_deploy' and 'begin_deploy' by specifying the isolation guarantees and the integration with source writing tools.

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 description provides implicit guidance: use after writing source files via write_source_files or list_source_files autoPromote. It mentions that the first run persists settings for subsequent calls. However, it lacks an explicit comparison to alternatives like deploy_from_url or commit_deploy, and does not specify when NOT to use this tool.

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