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

Annotations already declare destructive, non-readonly, non-idempotent behavior, and the description adds important context beyond them: a version snapshot is taken first, site_restore can undo it, builds are capped at ~10 minutes, and node_modules disk usage may be prohibitive on small servers.

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 dense and front-loaded with the core rebuild/publish behavior. It is somewhat repetitive about the .src source requirement, but most sentences carry useful operational detail for a complex tool.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, the description covers prerequisites, side effects, alternatives, and build limits well, and the output schema handles return values. The main gap is the unexplained `server` parameter, which is needed for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains `site` well (key or domain of an extra website; empty for main), but says nothing about the `server` parameter, leaving one of two parameters undocumented.

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+resource: rebuild and republish a source-backed Next.js/Vite/CRA site from .src/. It clearly distinguishes itself from deploy_site_zip and from editing a plain static site directly, so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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 says when to use it (after editing .src with site_edit_file/site_write_file), when not to use it (plain static sites have no build step), and names relevant alternatives such as site_restore and deploy_site_zip.

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