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

Annotations already flag the call as destructive and open-world, but the description adds meaningful context beyond that: publication requires platform-admin authority, and prior snapshots and pinned company adoptions are preserved. It does not explain expectedVersion conflict behavior or retry semantics, so it is good but not complete.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and authority constraint, with no filler. The opening repeats the title closely, but the remaining content is efficient and adds constraints.

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 destructive, versioned publish operation with no output schema and low parameter coverage, the description covers authority and state-preservation well but omits conflict/version semantics and idempotency/retry behavior. It is adequate but leaves real gaps an agent would need.

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 only 17%, with only idempotency_key documented in the schema, yet the description does not explain company, profile, expectedVersion, reason, or documents. 'Exact versioned' faintly gestures at expectedVersion, but the description does not compensate for the large documentation gap.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Publish exact versioned shared guidance') and adds the distinguishing authority requirement (Summer platform-admin). It does not name the closest sibling (summer_knowledge_shared_review) that an agent might otherwise consider, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 a prerequisite ('Company-admin authority alone cannot publish'), which implies when the tool is callable, but gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over summer_knowledge_edit, summer_knowledge_create, or summer_knowledge_shared_review. Usage is inferable but not directive.

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