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

Annotations only mark readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds key behavioral context by revealing that the tool returns a shell command the agent must execute, that the command must be run at the project root, and that an upload_id is produced. It does not detail side effects of the command, but the core non-obvious behavior is disclosed.

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 concise sentences front-load the purpose and then give precise execution guidance. The all-caps emphasis is purposeful in flagging exact execution as critical.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow: the returned value is a shell command, it must be executed at the project root, and the resulting upload_id feeds into deploy_code. The response field names are not specified, but the necessary next-step information is 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%: vps_id is documented as the server id from list_vps. The description adds no extra parameter detail, so the baseline score 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?

The description states a specific purpose: it is the first step to get the user's code onto the server and returns a shell command. This clearly identifies the tool's role and differentiates it from deploy_code, which is the follow-up step.

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 gives explicit operational instructions: run the returned shell command exactly at the project root and then call deploy_code with the upload_id. It names the sibling tool and the sequence, leaving no ambiguity about when and how to use it.

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