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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: the automatic pre-publish validation (forms bound to /_tp/form.php with spam protection, single HTML file becomes index.html), the guarantee that BLOCKING means nothing was published, the nature of WARNINGS, and that previous versions remain restorable. This is exactly the kind of operational detail an agent needs before a destructive action.

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 confirmation gate, then the mechanism, then the report semantics and recovery. It is fairly long and dense, but essentially every sentence carries operational value; a slight tightening of the warning examples would help.

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, and the description compensates by explaining the response shape (BLOCKING vs. WARNINGS and what each implies). Combined with the safety gate, side effects and recovery path, an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret this correctly.

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%, so both parameters (domain, deploy_id) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Prüft den Deploy und schaltet ihn live") and immediately scopes the effect: the new version replaces the current website. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like deploy_preview, deploy_put_file and deploy_rollback, which are even named.

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 when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: only after explicit user confirmation in this conversation ("ja, veröffentlichen"), never automatically after upload and never without asking. It also names the recovery alternative (deploy_rollback) and the follow-up path (deploy_put_file) when BLOCKING occurs.

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