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

Annotations cover read-only, destructive, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds behavioral detail beyond annotations: property order preservation, mandatory schema binding, and that creation does not auto-publish. Doesn't state duplicate-slug behavior, but that's beyond typical expectations.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the purpose. Sentence 2 is slightly dense with the human-editor detail, but each sentence earns its place; no redundancy or 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?

Output schema covers return values and annotations cover safety, so the description only needs lifecycle context, which it provides (create → schema prerequisite → publish). Not explicitly covering duplicate-slug errors is acceptable given annotation and output-schema coverage.

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 100%, so per rubric the baseline is 3. The description reinforces schema_id in prose but adds no per-parameter detail beyond the schema; the schema descriptions are thorough (e.g., use_latest_schema explains draft vs published version).

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 (Create) with resource (datafile) and content (JSON object). Distinguishes from sibling tools like publish_datafile and create_schema by noting the schema prerequisite and the separate publish step. The purpose is unmistakable.

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?

Provides explicit pre-requisite guidance (author or pick a schema with schema tools first) and post-action guidance (publish with publish_datafile to serve from the CDN). Implicitly distinguishes from update_datafile/patch_datafile via 'Create a new'; could contrast explicitly but is largely clear.

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