Server has 22 tools with explicit Zod schemas and descriptions. Naming follows verb_noun convention (list_, get_, deploy_, etc.). Most tools have 50-150 char descriptions, meeting baseline. However, parameter descriptions are inconsistent, some parameters lack descriptions entirely (e.g., 'bindings' array items in deploy_worker lack per-field docs). Output schemas are not documented in the source; return types are inferred from summarize functions but not formally specified. Error handling is minimal, no recovery guidance or error classification visible. Security is reasonable (no secrets in params), but composition could be tighter (e.g., deploy_static_site and deploy_worker overlap in responsibility).

• Document output schemas for all tools. Add a comment block above each tool handler showing the return type structure (e.g., 'Returns: { id: string, name: string, status: 'active'|'inactive', ... }'). This enables LLMs to plan multi-step workflows.
• Add per-field descriptions to nested object parameters. For 'modules' array items, clarify: 'name: Module filename (e.g., index.js, utils.ts)', 'content: Full source code as a string', 'content_type: MIME type (default: application/javascript+module)'.
• Add error handling guidance to tool descriptions. E.g., deploy_worker: 'Returns error if a binding references a non-existent resource. Verify all KV namespace IDs and D1 database IDs exist before deploying.'
• Implement a dry-run or confirmation pattern for destructive operations. Add an optional 'confirm' parameter to delete_worker, or split into delete_worker_preview (returns what would be deleted) and delete_worker_confirmed (requires explicit confirmation).
• Clarify tool composition. Add a note to deploy_static_site: 'Use this for static sites with optional Worker code. For code-only deployments, use deploy_worker. For asset updates to an existing Worker, use redeploy_assets.'