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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false. The description adds the ownership requirement ('owned TON Site') and the input method ('explicit file contents'), but doesn't detail the destructive behavior (e.g., overwriting existing files) or side effects. It doesn't contradict annotations, but adds limited context.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the core action and scope. Every word carries meaning, with 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 deployment tool with destructive and open-world hints, the description is minimal. It doesn't explain what happens to existing files, whether files are merged or replaced, or what the response looks like (no output schema). The description relies heavily on annotations and schema, leaving important usage gaps.

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 0%. The description does not explain the parameters 'site' or 'files', nor the file object structure (path, text, contentBase64). The phrase 'explicit file contents' only hints at 'files' without providing any semantic detail, leaving the agent without guidance on how to construct valid inputs.

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 the action ('Deploy or update'), resource ('owned TON Site'), and input source ('explicit file contents'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sites.publish_template, which deploys from a template, and sites.delete.

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 phrase 'from explicit file contents' provides clear context for when to use this tool (when you have raw file contents), and 'owned' suggests a prerequisite. However, no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is given, so it stops short of a 5.

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