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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the flat fee, payment alternatives, the requirement to pass ownerWallet in wallet-less cases, and the polling of preview_status/retry. However, it doesn't specify what happens if unsafe files are found, leaving an outcome ambiguous.

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?

The description is dense but each sentence adds essential information: the core action, pricing, wallet scenarios, and non-extension of lease. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and remains readable despite its length.

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?

Given 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the payment flow, wallet condition, and polling process but omits parameter semantics for two fields and the error/response behavior (e.g., what an unsafe file triggers). This leaves gaps an agent must resolve.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains ownerWallet thoroughly ('the address that claimed this slug') and implies uploadId as the zip, but leaves slug and tokens undefined, forcing an agent to guess their roles (e.g., whether tokens affect pricing).

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 states the exact action 'Check the zip for unsafe files, then redeploy the live Worker,' naming the resource (live Worker) and the process (redeploy). It distinguishes itself from siblings like renew ('Does not extend lease days') and publish_website, making its purpose 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?

Provides clear contextual guidance: payment requirements, wallet-less flow, and explicit exclusion that it does not extend lease days. Although it doesn't name alternative tools like renew, the 'does not extend lease' note implicitly directs to that sibling when lease extension is needed.

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