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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses the encoding contract per file type (utf8 vs base64), hard limits (200 files, 1.5 MB each, 25 MB per site), the immediate live-publish side effect, and a per-call cost. It still omits whether deletes are reversible and what permissions are required for write/delete.

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?

One tight paragraph, front-loaded with the action set, then encoding rules, then limits, side effects, and cost in descending order of importance. No filler sentences and no 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 6-parameter multi-action tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers actions, encoding, limits, mutation side effects, and cost. The remaining gap is the read return shape and authorization requirements, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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 67% and the description supplements it meaningfully, notably the encoding-by-extension rule (text as utf8, images and fonts as base64), which the schema only exposes as a raw enum. The path-vs-files split for single vs batch writes is restated from the schema rather than added to.

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 names a specific resource (files of a hosted site) and enumerates the concrete operations (list, read, write, delete) exposed by the action enum. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with site-level siblings like site_deploy, site_import, or app_frontend, leaving the agent to infer the file-vs-site boundary.

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?

Usage is implied by the action list and by the note that write can handle one or many files at once, which hints at the batching case. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion of neighboring tools (e.g. when to prefer site_deploy over a write, or app_frontend over raw files), and no stated prerequisites.

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