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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (mutable, destructive, idempotent, open-world). The description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: the token is used only for the fetch and never stored, the github source is recorded for one-click re-deploy, version history is preserved while the market shows only the newest, and older versions remain retrievable by hash.

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 core action, then layered with fetch model, persistence, versioning, and auth. Dense but each sentence carries distinct information; the auth section could be tightened but earns its place.

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 17-param mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers auth mode, storage semantics, versioning behavior, and network fetching model. It omits return-value/error details, but those are largely covered by schema and surrounding API docs.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning beyond the schema for key params — 'token' never stored, owner/repo/ref/folder recorded on the app, and the signing-vs-agent_key auth preference — which enriches how the agent understands those fields.

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+resource ('Deploy (or re-deploy) a miniapp from a GitHub repo's production folder') and immediately scopes it against siblings by explaining the broker-side fetch model rather than client upload, implicitly distinguishing it from publish_app/publish_xmbl_app.

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?

It clarifies the deploy vs re-deploy case and hints at why you'd pick this over publish_app (no manual base64, no client body-size limit), but never explicitly names an alternative tool or states when NOT to use this one. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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