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

Annotations already carry destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description aligns with those (rebuilding a live production app implies an overwrite). It adds the useful 'LIVE production' scope context, but besides that it doesn't disclose much beyond what the annotations convey. No contradiction with annotations.

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 core action front-loaded. Every clause earns its place: the action, the trigger condition, the alternative, and the pointer to the guide — 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 destructive operation on a live app with a single required param and no output schema, the description gives the agent the key behavioral context, differentiates from siblings, and routes to a guide for deeper details. Minor gap: it never hints at what the response or side effects look like beyond the rebuild, but for this complexity it is largely sufficient.

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 50%: include_made_with_floot is documented in the schema, but the required projectId has no schema description, and the description does not compensate for it. The description adds no parameter-level guidance whatsoever, leaving the undocumented required parameter unelaborated.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Rebuild the LIVE production app with the current project code') that makes the operation unmistakable. It also draws an explicit distinction from the publish_app sibling, so an agent can tell the two apart without inspecting schemas.

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?

States precisely when to call it ('after changes the user wants live') and names the exclusion condition ('the app must already be published; otherwise use publish_app'). It even points to get_guides('publishing') for further detail, leaving no ambiguity about selection.

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