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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds one genuine behavioral detail ('Returns diagnostics on failure'), but never says that deploying replaces the currently live version or what happens to the prior published content, which is the key thing a destructive deploy would need to disclose.

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 short sentences, zero waste, with the core action and outcome front-loaded and the failure behavior appended. Nothing redundant or padded.

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?

With a complete schema and annotations carrying the destructive/idempotent profile, most of the burden is covered elsewhere. However, for a mutation that overwrites a live public site, the description omits the lifecycle impact and permission expectations, and there is no output schema to explain the diagnostics mentioned on failure.

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%: the schema documents 'version' defaulting to newest and 'privateKey' as the editor key. The description adds no syntax, format, or semantic detail beyond the schema, 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 ('Deploy (publish) a saved version') and clarifies the outcome ('goes live at its public address'), which disambiguates from siblings like upload_file or write_code. It does not, however, name or contrast with any sibling tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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 description gives no guidance on when to deploy versus other lifecycle tools (change_code, check_code, upload_file), nor any prerequisites or sequencing (e.g., that a version must be saved first). Implicitly, 'a saved version' hints at a precondition, but nothing explicit is stated.

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