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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it discloses that the tool writes AND deletes, that main deploys to staging while other branches get previews, that a deploy is triggered, and that whole files up to 5 MB are expected. It omits auth requirements, atomicity/reversibility of the commit, and error behavior, which are meaningful gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose before constraints. Each sentence adds distinct information (audience, branch behavior, payload format, size cap) with no repetition of the schema.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, branch/deploy effects, payload format, and size limits well. It stops short of describing what the call returns (commit id, deploy id, status) and any auth requirements, which an agent would need given the absence of an output schema.

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 80%, so the baseline is a 3, and the description adds real value: 'whole files' semantics, text-as-utf8 vs binary-as-base64, and a '5 MB per file' limit that is not present in the schema. It also clarifies the branch parameter's deployment consequence (staging vs preview), which the schema's 'Default main' does not.

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 precise verb and resource ('Commit files to the project without git') and immediately scopes it as a git replacement for agents without CLI access. This cleanly separates it from siblings like git.revert/git.remote and from the read-oriented code.list/code.read.

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 clause 'for agents that cannot run git or the CLI (e.g. Claude or ChatGPT in the cloud)' gives a clear when-to-use condition and implicitly a when-not (agents that can run git). It does not explicitly name git.* or the deploy sibling as alternatives, so routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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