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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds valuable detail: the call is refused if build_sha256 does not match the artifact's stored hash, storing replaces the file's full content going forward, and agent:dispatch permission is required. No contradiction with annotations.

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 action. Every clause carries useful context, though the long parenthetical about protocol internals and the repeated 'only writes one' could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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 write-only tool with no output schema and 7 fully documented parameters, this description covers what the tool does, why it exists, its validation rule, its destructive side effect, the lack of any read-back path, and its required permission. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke it correctly.

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 100% and each parameter already has a precise description. The prose adds the high-level constraint that build_sha256 must equal the stored artifact hash and repeats that the tool never computes a diff, but it does not materially extend the per-parameter meaning already present in 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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Store an already-computed diff for one file of a build bundle against a base commit.' It also anticipates the misleading tool name by explicitly stating the route is write-only and that no GET path reads a stored diff back, distinguishing it from tascan_get_build/tascan_get_build_file.

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 description gives clear context: the parser has no GET for this path, the deployer precomputes the diff, and this route only validates and stores it. It explicitly says there is no REST route that reads the stored diff back and that this tool only writes one, providing a firm when-not. It does not name alternative tools, but the endpoint references imply them.

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