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

Goes well past the destructiveHint=true annotation by spelling out what is actually destroyed (overwrites and deletes hit working files immediately), what is preserved (other files untouched), how to recover (checkpoints), the optimistic-concurrency behavior of `version`, and the fact that the published site is unaffected until redeploy. Each sentence adds context an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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?

Five tight sentences, front-loaded with the capability, then constraints, then the safety and recovery path, then the deploy caveat. No restatement of the tool name or filler; every clause carries operational information.

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 destructive multi-file mutation with no output schema, the description covers limits, path rules, partial-application scope, reversibility, concurrency, and downstream deployment effects — everything needed to invoke it safely without reading other 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 already 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds constraints absent from the schema: the 1 MB per-file cap, the ban on `..` in paths, and the refuse-if-changed semantics of `version`. It does not explain the `action` default or content-for-delete convention, which the schema already covers.

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?

Opens with a specific verb set and resource: 'Create, update or delete files in a project', plus concrete scope (1–100 files, 1 MB each, relative paths). This clearly separates it from read-side siblings like get_project_files and from deploy_project, which the description explicitly says is unaffected.

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 actionable routing: confirm with the user before applying overwrites/deletes, use list_checkpoints/restore_checkpoint to undo, and pass `version` from get_project to guard against concurrent changes. It stops short of explicitly naming a read alternative (e.g. 'use get_project_files to read'), so the contrast is implied rather than stated.

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