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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's redundancy on idempotency is minor. It does add real value beyond the annotations: the NO_ACTIVE_LIVE failure mode and the copy-at-start mental model. It stops short of explaining why the operation is flagged destructive (e.g., overwriting the on-air state).

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the rationale, the when-to-use condition, and finally the idempotency/error notes. No filler; each sentence earns its 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 single-param tool with no output schema, the description covers the conceptual model, the autoSynch dependency, idempotency, and the key error condition. An agent has everything needed to decide when to call it and interpret a failure.

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?

Only one parameter (projectId) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it. The description implies the project whose setup is pushed but adds no syntax, formatting, or sourcing detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: pushing the project's current setup to the currently-running stream. The added mental model ('a running stream uses the copy of the project it was started with') makes the operation's intent unambiguous and clearly distinct from siblings like start_stream, stop_stream, or update_project.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use condition ('only needed when the project has autoSynch off') and the inverse exclusion ('with autoSynch on, edits reach the stream by themselves'). Though it doesn't name an alternative sibling tool, the condition-based routing is fully explicit.

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