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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true; the description adds asynchronous behavior: 'The build runs in the background: this returns "building" at once, and get_deployment_status reports the result.' This discloses the immediate return value and the follow-up mechanism, going beyond the structured fields.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded purpose, then usage, then behavior. Every sentence earns its place, with no repetition of schema or annotations.

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 single-required-parameter mutation tool with an output schema, the description covers the prerequisite ('already deployed'), the trigger conditions, and the asynchronous behavior with a pointer to get_deployment_status. Nothing necessary for correct invocation 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%: the only parameter project_name is documented as 'Name of the project.' The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the schema carries the semantic burden. 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+resource: 'Update the live site of a project that is already deployed.' The qualifier 'already deployed' distinguishes it from the sibling deploy, and it names get_deployment_status as the status-checking counterpart.

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 when to use: 'Use this when the user asks to update the live site, or to retry a failed build.' It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or a named alternative for the same operation, but the trigger conditions are unambiguous.

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