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

Annotations already flag destructive and non-idempotent, and the description adds real context beyond them: no file re-upload, the operation is conditional (version_conflict with 'nothing is written', implying atomicity), and the previous permalink keeps serving while the version is kept. It does not explain why the tool is flagged destructive or what the successful result looks like.

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 core mechanism is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the conflict rule and the permalink consequence; no filler. The trailing permalink sentence is dense but earns its place by explaining live-site behavior.

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 4-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the mechanism, the failure mode, and the side effects on the live site. The main remaining gap is what a successful call returns (new version identifier?), which an agent would need to chain further calls.

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%, so the schema already documents all four parameters including expected_version's conflict behavior. The description's 'Inputs:' list largely restates the schema and adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Creates a new version whose files equal a retained version') plus the key differentiator 'without uploading those files again', which separates it from publish_site, plan_upload and finalize_upload in the sibling list.

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?

Usage is implied: this is the path when you want a previously retained version's file map live again. The conflict condition for expected_version is spelled out, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no alternative tool named (e.g., when to publish_site fresh instead).

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