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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description adds value by specifying exactly what is destroyed ('Wipes the previous broken install'). This goes beyond the annotation's generic destructiveness flag. However, it does not mention authentication/authorization requirements for the server_token beyond stating it 'acts as authorisation', which is slightly vague.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. The description front-loads the core action, then provides context on input sources and expected output. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description adequately notes the return value ('Returns a new session_id') and directs the agent to poll with check_status. For a 4-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage, the description covers all necessary context including when each optional parameter should be used.

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% and each parameter description already explains usage well. The description adds value by clarifying that ip and password should only be passed if the user discovered errors (typo/wrong password), while login defaults to root. This provides practical guidance beyond schema definitions.

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 clearly states it retries a failed deployment using a server_token, wipes the previous broken install, runs a fresh deploy on the same server, and returns a new session_id. This differentiates it from sibling tools like register_and_deploy and check_status.

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 says when to use this tool (when user reports a failed deploy or pastes a server_token) and how to get the token from specific sources (failure email, deploy-progress UI, or dashboard). It also suggests polling with check_status for the result, distinguishing usage from check_status itself.

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