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

Annotations already establish write/non-idempotent/open-world, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: deploy=true promotes to production hosting, and publishing 'flushes EVERY staged change on that project, including edits made by the site's own team'. That blast-radius warning is the kind of context annotations cannot convey. There is a mild tension with destructiveHint=false (flushing others' edits), but publish applies rather than deletes data, so it is not a true contradiction.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then deploy semantics, then workflow sequencing, then a clearly labeled CAUTION. Every sentence earns its place; nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, when to run it, the side-effects, the parameter's real-world effect, and the collaboration risk. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and safely.

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% and the schema already describes both params, so 3 is the baseline. The description earns above-baseline by explaining the consequence of deploy=true ('promote the deployment to production hosting') beyond the schema's terse 'Also deploy to production (default false)', clarifying the effect rather than just the flag.

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 ('Publish a connected Framer project') and defines scope precisely as pushing 'all staged CMS/canvas changes live'. It explicitly ties itself to the framer_cms/framer_canvas sibling edits, so an agent can distinguish it from other framer_* tools 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 explicit sequencing ('Run this after framer_cms / framer_canvas edits, then re-crawl to verify') and a clear precondition with an exclusion ('On a shared/client project, confirm with the user before publishing'). This is exactly the when-to-use / when-to-be-careful guidance the dimension rewards.

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