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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context the annotations cannot convey: the change is staged and only applies on the next deploy or redeploy. It could go further on what happens to paths omitted from the new list, but the staging semantics are a real value-add.

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?

Two tight sentences with the action front-loaded and the staging caveat immediately after. No filler or redundancy.

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 mutation with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior including the deferred-effect semantics. The remaining gap is path string format and the fate of previously public paths not included in the new list.

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 coverage is 50%: project_id is documented in the schema, while paths is not. The description partially compensates by clarifying that paths are unauthenticated paths and that the list is replaced wholesale, but it gives no format guidance (leading slash, wildcards, ordering) for the array items.

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 ('Replace') and resource ('a DenkOps project's list of public (unauthenticated) paths'), which clearly distinguishes it from the read-only sibling get_public_paths. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 gives useful timing context ('takes effect on the next deploy or redeploy') but offers no explicit when-to-use guidance, no pointer to get_public_paths for reading the current list, and no note on whether this is a full overwrite versus a merge beyond the word 'Replace'.

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