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

The description adds context beyond the annotations: 'without touching other files' clarifies the mutation scope, and the file-count/size limits communicate operational constraints. It is consistent with readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, though it does not detail error behavior or permissions. No annotation contradiction detected.

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 concise sentences deliver the core operation, use cases, and limits in order of importance. There is no filler or redundant 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?

An output schema exists, so return values do not need explanation. The description covers scope, use cases, and important limits. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly contrasting with replace_site_files or delete_site_files, but the current description is sufficient for a 2-parameter tool with well-covered 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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters (site_id, files, path, content) are already well documented. The description adds little beyond the 1 MB per-file limit; it does not substantially compensate for anything missing in the schema, so the baseline score of 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?

The description states a specific operation—'Add or overwrite specific files'—on an existing site)Skip it is narrowly scoped by 'without touching other files,' which distinguishes it from broader sibling tools like replace_site_files or delete_site_files. The examples (update page, add asset, fix typo) further clarify the intended purpose.

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 explicitly provides use cases: updating an existing page, adding a new asset, or fixing a typo. It gives clear context for when to use the tool, though it does not name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use it.

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