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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive); the description adds genuine behavioral context — the call is state-gated, may simply echo the state instead of acting, and the refusal case tells the agent what must happen first. It never addresses the idempotency_key parameter, though, despite the tool being annotated non-idempotent, so it misses one behavioral dimension.

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 purpose is front-loaded in sentence one, which is good, but roughly half the text is a port/container tangent that is only loosely related to invoking this specific tool. The state semantics are dense and slightly hard to parse, and the port digression crowds out parameter-relevant content.

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 non-read-only deployment tool with 0% parameter coverage and no output schema, the description covers workflow state thoroughly but leaves the calling contract unexplained: neither input parameter is described, and the non-idempotent behavior implied by the annotations is unaddressed.

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 0% and the description says nothing about project_id or idempotency_key. For a tool carrying an idempotency_key parameter, the omission is significant — the description should explain how that key behaves given idempotentHint=false.

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?

"Build the images and hand the project to the platform" gives a concrete verb and resource, and the state discussion (locked / post-complete_upload) implicitly separates it from siblings like restart, stop, and complete_upload. It does not name an explicit alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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 states precisely when the tool is needed (get_project shows locked, from complete_upload onward), what happens after that point (the project analyses, builds, and launches by itself), and what the tool does when called outside that state (answers with the state or refuses with the prerequisite). That is explicit when-to-use plus when-not behavior.

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