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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the agent knows this mutates and can destroy state. The description adds the skip/retry framing, which explains the intent of the mutation, but it never says what skipping actually does to the staged update (abandoned? re-requestable?) or that idempotency_key is required for safe retries. With annotations covering the safety profile, this is adequate but not rich.

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 tight sentences, the primary action stated first and the disambiguation second. Nothing is redundant with the title or annotations.

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-param mutation with no output schema, the definition covers what to do and which sibling handles publishing. The remaining gaps are idempotency_key behavior and the post-skip state of the update; the destructive warning is already carried by annotations.

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%, so the description carries the full burden, and it only partially does so: 'skip' and 'retry' map directly to the action enum and the update target implies update_id. The required workspace scoping and especially the idempotency_key — whose semantics (dedupe window, retry safety, 8–128 length) are entirely unstated — get no explanation anywhere.

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?

Names the specific action pair (skip / retry) and the exact resource (a staged platform update), including the failure state the retry applies to. It also explicitly routes publishing away to the publish_start sibling, so the agent can distinguish this tool without opening the schema.

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?

Clear usage conditions: use it to skip a staged update or retry one that failed, and a named alternative (publish_start) for the publishing path. It stops short of saying when NOT to use it — e.g. checking template_updates_get first to confirm the update's state, or whether skip is allowed only pre-publish.

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