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

Annotations cover the safety profile (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the version_conflict guard on expected_version that results in nothing being written, and the retention behavior of the previous permalink. It does not explain auth/permission requirements or rate limits, but the added conflict and retention semantics are valuable.

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 tight sentences that front-load the core behavior before the input list and edge cases. No filler, though the trailing retention sentence is tangential to invoking the tool.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the write effect, the concurrency guard, and the failure mode. It omits what the resulting version is named/returned and any permission requirements, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.

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 schema already documents each parameter, including that a mismatch returns version_conflict. The description largely restates the same semantic for expected_version and lists the inputs, so it meets the baseline without materially extending 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('creates a new version whose files equal a retained version') and a distinguishing mechanism ('without uploading those files again'). This clearly separates it from siblings like list_versions, get_manifest, and publish_site.

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 implies the scenario (copying a retained version forward) but never states when to choose this over alternatives such as re-publishing or uploading fresh files, nor prerequisites like needing a version discovered via list_versions. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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