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

Annotations already establish write, non-destructive, idempotent behavior. The description adds real value by explaining that the file stays uncommitted until projects_changes_commit, but it omits what happens if the path already exists (overwrite vs error), which matters for an idempotent create.

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 short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the staging constraint and path base each earn their place.

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 3-parameter create with an output schema present, the description covers the essential workflow (staging, commit dependency, path base). It only lacks collision behavior for an existing path.

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 100% schema coverage the baseline is 3, and the description earns an extra point by clarifying that 'path' is relative to the project root – meaning the schema does not itself supply.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Stage a new text file') that clearly separates it from siblings like projects_files_update, projects_files_delete, and projects_files_read. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, so it stops short of a 5, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

It names the follow-up tool (projects_changes_commit) and implies the staging workflow, which gives useful context. However, it never says when to use this versus projects_files_update for an existing file, or that it's only for new files.

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