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

Annotations cover the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: what is queued (unpacking, Bridge SDK analysis), that earlier archives are retained, that files land at a public archive URL for QA, and that it does NOT publish the sandbox page or catalog listing. The only wrinkle is the mild tension between 'Safe to repeat' and idempotentHint=false — retry-safety is not the same as idempotency, but the phrasing could be read either way, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the sequencing step, and each sentence carries non-redundant information (sequencing, effects, publication scope, error/idempotency, follow-up). Slightly packed, but nothing is 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?

No output schema exists, yet the description covers the outcome (files available at a public archive URL), the boundary of the side effect (no sandbox page or catalog listing published), the 409 failure mode, retry behavior, and which sibling exposes the resulting state. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly and set expectations.

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 100% and both parameters are documented there with provenance hints ('as answered by start_archive_upload', 'as returned by list_applications'). The description adds no parameter-level information, which is the correct baseline 3 when the schema already does the work.

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+resource ('adds the archive to the game's form', queuing unpacking and Bridge SDK analysis) and positions itself explicitly as 'Step 3 of 3, after the PUT'. An agent can distinguish it from start_archive_upload (the PUT) and get_archive_status (the polling view) without opening any schema.

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 the sequencing precondition ('after the PUT'), the failure condition ('Refused with 409 while nothing is uploaded'), and routes the agent to the alternative for follow-up ('keep polling get_archive_status'). This is explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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