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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: queued migrations apply asynchronously on replicas, cross-schema conflicts remain blockers, editor permission is required, and no LLM call is made. This goes well beyond the annotation signals.

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 description is dense but every clause earns its place: purpose, preconditions, permissions, validation mode, transform confirmation, language requirements, async behavior, and a docs pointer. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and does not waste words.

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 complex, destructive publish operation, the description covers prerequisites, permissions, validation paths, async replica behavior, and conflict handling. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not required in the description. A docs reference is included for the full workflow.

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?

Even though schema description coverage is 100%, the description enriches each key parameter: validate_only returns diff/blockers/warnings/migration_sql, confirm_transforms is required for user-approved transform migrations, and key_language is needed when multilingual classification requires it. This adds real decision-making value beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Publish a database-linked schema's working copy as the contract used by enrichment and replicas.' It clearly distinguishes publishing from editing or saving by noting that unlinked drafts cannot be published and that a newly linked schema sends nothing until first publication.

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 strong usage context: it requires editor permission, supports a validate_only dry-run, and explains when confirm_transforms and key_language are needed. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like save_schema or update_schema as alternatives for draft editing, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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