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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent), and the description adds real context beyond them: registering is not promoting, expected_revision guards the promote, secrets must never be sent, and a missing artifact produces warnings while leaving the current channel untouched. It does not describe auth/permission requirements or return shape, keeping it below a 5.

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-loads the four operations before the platform caveats, and every clause adds a distinct constraint (register ≠ promote, secrets prohibited, warning-on-missing-artifact). The semicolon-heavy style is dense but contains no filler.

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 tool with four modes, a nested manifest object, and no output schema, the description covers the workflow and safety rules well but omits what manifest/public_key/workspace_id mean and which parameters apply to which action. An agent could still pick the wrong payload shape for register.

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% across 9 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It gives meaning to action values, channel (stable/beta), build_id, revision (saved project revision) and expected_revision, but leaves manifest, public_key and workspace_id entirely unexplained, as does the schema.

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?

Names concrete verbs and resources: reading immutable release history, obtaining a snapshot fingerprint, registering a signed release, promoting a build ID. It also separates the two delivery paths (signed launcher feed for Windows/macOS vs SteamPipe promoted in Steamworks), which lets an agent tell this apart from nearby tools such as gripforge_game_publish or gripforge_build_deploy.

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?

Explicitly states that registering never promotes, that packaging/signing/upload belong to the local CLI prepare/finalize/publish flow, and that Steam promotion happens in Steamworks instead. It lacks an explicit comparison to the sibling MCP publish/deploy tools, which is the only missing piece of routing guidance.

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