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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description usefully adds the versioning model (edits are saved as a NEW version rather than mutating in place) and the inline-deploy capability, which the annotations do not convey. It does not describe error behavior or what happens to prior versions beyond the new-version framing.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and edit modes, then the key differential behavior, then the deploy tip. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers versioning, differential editing, and inline deploy well. It omits what the call returns (e.g. the new version identifier an agent would need to chain into deploy or read_lambda), but is otherwise sufficient to invoke 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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it clarifies that omitted files are left intact and that deploy: true publishes in the same call. It does not explain edit ordering (the schema notes edits apply after files/remove) or the privateKey/change/specification semantics.

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 ('change some files of the newest version and save the result as a new version') and enumerates the three edit modes (add/replace, remove, text replace). It implicitly differentiates from write_code by noting unchanged files need not be resent, but never names the sibling, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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 clear context for incremental editing ('Everything not named stays as it is, so there is no need to resend unchanged files') and a usage tip for combining publish with the edit via deploy: true. No explicit when-not guidance or named alternative (e.g. write_code) is provided.

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