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

Annotations already flag destructive=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds real context: the site becomes reachable by anyone (public exposure), it counts against the deploy quota, and there is a required confirmation step plus a recommended follow-up tool. That is meaningful behavior beyond the structured hints.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and effect, then prerequisites and cost. No filler or redundancy.

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 without an output schema, the description covers the exposure impact, quota cost, confirmation requirement, prerequisite check, and follow-up verification tool. An agent has enough to call it correctly and safely.

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 all three parameters including subdomain and public_gallery are already documented in the schema. The description only restates the optional-subdomain aspect without adding format or edge-case meaning, so 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 ('Publish a project to the public internet on the MisarDev runtime') plus the optional subdomain scope. This is distinguishable from siblings like update_project_subdomain and unpublish_project, since the effect (public reachability) is explicit.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use preconditions: confirm with the user before calling, check the address first with check_subdomain, and follow with get_deployment_status. It also names the quota cost, which affects whether to call at all.

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