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

The description adds value beyond annotations: it discloses that re-writing overwrites previous source (destructive), notes file caps (5 MB per file, 50 MB per call, 200 files per call), and explains source storage requirement. No contradiction with annotations (idempotentHint: true, destructiveHint: true). Could mention side effects like schema changes.

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 with four sentences, front-loading the core purpose. It efficiently covers usage, error cases, and constraints without extraneous details. Could be slightly more structured but acceptable.

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?

The description explains the workflow (list, write, deploy), error handling, and file caps. However, it omits information about the 'name' and 'siteId' parameters, which are essential for invocation. Given the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description could be more complete regarding parameter roles.

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 only 33% (files property described, not name or siteId). The main description does not explain the 'name' and 'siteId' parameters, leaving their purpose unclear. The files parameter is well-described in the schema, but the description fails to compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 purpose: staging edits to a site's editable source tree (not live dist). It uses a specific verb-resource combination ('stage edits') and distinguishes from live deployment via update_site. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like add_files or apply_edits, leaving some ambiguity.

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 usage guidance: lists a prerequisite (use list_source_files first), explains that the dist is unchanged until redeploy, and describes an error condition (SOURCE_STORAGE_NOT_ENABLED) with remediation. It implies when not to use the tool (if immediate dist changes are needed). Missing explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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