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

Annotations only declare the write/open-world/safe-to-re-run profile; the description adds material context beyond them: that a live deployment is replaced, that a paid plan is required, that explicit user confirmation must precede the call, and that execution is asynchronous with a polling follow-up (dreamagent_get_project_status until 'ready').

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?

Front-loaded with a 'WRITE ACTION' label, then organized into short labeled blocks (confirmation, async behavior). Every sentence carries actionable information with no 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 two-parameter async deploy tool with an output schema already covering return values, the description covers the operation, prerequisites, safety protocol, and post-call polling loop. Nothing an agent needs to invoke and follow up 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 0%, so the description must carry the load; it fully explains the semantics of 'confirm' (only set true after user agreement), which the schema documents only as a boolean with default false. 'project_id' is left unexplained, but its meaning is unambiguous from the tool's purpose.

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 pair and resource with concrete effect: rebuilds the app from current source files and pushes the new version live. Clear enough to act on, though it does not differentiate from the similarly-named sibling dreamagent_commit_push, which also 'pushes' changes.

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 names the trigger ('Use after finishing file edits (dreamagent_write_file)') and the sibling it follows, states the account prerequisite (Pro/paid only), and gives the confirmation protocol with the exact parameter value (confirm=true). Little is left to inference.

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