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

Annotations already declare the write profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false), yet the description adds real substance: the version is immutable and appended (prior versions survive), activation flips the live version, and the receipt is bounded. It also notes that 'why' is accepted but not recorded, which is genuinely non-obvious. Missing: permissions required and any archive size limits.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and target, with no filler. The field-partition clause is dense but each clause carries distinct information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the 'bounded receipt' pointer usefully signals truncation. For a mutating deploy tool with no annotation-level detail on auth or archive constraints, though, a sentence on required permissions or what happens to the previously live version would round it out.

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 100%, so baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by explaining the field partition — 'A version takes description, entrypoint and spa; title, slug and visibility belong to the bundle' — which tells the agent why certain fields are absent and prevents wasted attempts to set them.

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?

Specific verb and resource: appends an immutable ZIP version to a bundle and activates it, which clearly separates it from read-side siblings like bundle_get. It also delineates version-level fields from bundle-level fields. It does not, however, distinguish itself from bundle_rollback or deploy_bundle, which an agent could plausibly confuse with it.

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 only routing guidance is 'use bundle_get for complete metadata', which addresses the receipt rather than tool selection. There is no statement of when to prefer this over bundle_rollback (revert to a prior version) or deploy_bundle, nor any precondition such as requiring the bundle to already exist.

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