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

Beyond the annotations, the description explains what is replaced, the required ZIP layout, how macros are filled per click, and the 10 MB size limit. That adds meaningful operational context for a destructive, idempotent upload.

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 two tightly packed sentences with the main action front-loaded. Every clause contributes constraints or routing information without unnecessary repetition.

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 two-parameter destructive upload tool, the description covers the target, archive format, size constraints, macro behavior, and larger-archive alternative. Annotations already cover safety semantics, so no critical caller context is missing.

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?

The schema already documents both parameters at 100% coverage, but the description adds important constraints for zip_base64: size limit, root index.html requirement, adjacent assets, and macro substitution. The id parameter receives no additional meaning beyond 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: replace the page of a local offer with a ZIP archive. It also scopes the operation to dest_kind local, making it distinguishable from general offer update tools.

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 clearly indicates the tool is for local offers and gives an alternative path for archives over 10 MB via the REST endpoint. It does not explicitly mention sibling tools such as update_offer, so the routing guidance is strong but not fully exhaustive.

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