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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that live site files change, that build/migration commands may run, the git-connected precondition for failure, and the asynchronous event_id return contract. This is exactly the extra context an agent needs for a destructive, non-idempotent write that annotations alone only flag as dangerous.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the 'WRITE:' marker and the mutation warning, followed by the failure condition, async contract, and endpoint. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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?

With only one parameter at full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies everything else the agent needs: destructiveness, side effects, failure precondition, and the event_id return that pairs with spinupwp_get_event. Nothing material 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single site_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the qualifier that the site must have git connected, which is useful but marginal beyond the schema text.

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 and resource: pull the site's connected git branch and run its deploy script on the server. No sibling tool performs a git deploy, and the 'WRITE:' prefix plus the endpoint make the operation unambiguous at a glance.

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?

Gives a clear precondition for invocation — the site must have git connected, otherwise it fails — which tells the agent when this call is viable. It does not name an explicit alternative or when-not-to-use case, but no sibling tool offers a comparable deploy action, so the gap is minor.

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