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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that by stating the article 'is saved like an editor save and goes live,' which tells the agent the effect is a production publish. It does not disclose whether the live article is overwritten, whether the action is reversible, or whether confirmation is required.

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 sentences, no filler, and the core action and its effect are front-loaded. Every clause earns its place by clarifying scope and outcome.

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?

Adequate for a mutation tool whose schema is fully documented and whose annotations carry the safety hints. Still, for a destructive publish with no output schema, it omits what happens to the previously live article and whether the publish can be undone, which an agent should know before invoking it.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented; the description's mention of 'as drafted or with your edited Markdown' maps loosely to the optional 'proposed' field but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema's 'whole article file ... front matter included.' Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (publish) and resource (one proposed article update from Code updates), and clarifies the two modes of operation (as drafted, or with your edited Markdown). An agent can distinguish this from edit_code_update, discard_code_update, and decide_code_update_batch without opening any 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?

Usage is implied by 'publish one proposed article update,' and the outcome ('goes live') hints at when the agent would want this rather than editing. However, it never names the alternatives (edit_code_update, discard_code_update, decide_code_update_batch) or states preconditions/exclusions, leaving routing to inference.

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