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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, which is ambiguous about side effects. The description calls it a 'PREFLIGHT' and lists checks, implying it analyzes rather than modifies, but it never states whether it produces a report, mutates state, or has side effects. It adds useful context about the checks performed, but does not fully disclose behavioral traits beyond the 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 a single dense paragraph but stays focused. It front-loads the core purpose, then lists concrete failure modes, and ends with a usage directive. Every clause adds value; there is no fluff. It's slightly long but efficient for the information conveyed.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what the agent can expect as a result. It mentions 'catches' issues but doesn't specify the return format (e.g., a list of problems, a pass/fail status). It also omits prerequisites or side-effect warnings. Given the tool's complexity (preflight checks) and missing output info, the description is incomplete for an agent to fully anticipate the tool's behavior.

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 clear description in the schema. The tool description does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't clarify file formats beyond 'Map of {relative_path: file_content}' which is already in the schema). With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'PREFLIGHT a bundle BEFORE publish/deploy', and immediately differentiates it from build_validate by enumerating the exact deploy-killer categories it catches. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does and how it differs from its sibling.

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?

It explicitly instructs 'Run it after build_validate and before build_publish', giving a clear temporal placement in the workflow. It also implicitly states when not to use it (i.e., when you've already run build_validate and are ready to publish). This is direct, actionable guidance.

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