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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit by going beyond that: it explains that real emails go out to people who meet the trigger, that uncommitted draft changes are promoted to the next version, and that people already in the journey are not disrupted. That is meaningful consequence detail an annotation flag cannot express.

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, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the two consequences that matter most (who enters, who is unaffected). No filler, no restatement of the title.

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?

With annotations covering safety and a fully described two-parameter schema with no output schema required, the description covers the essential outcome and side effects. It stops short of noting what happens if the journey has no draft changes or fails validation, a minor gap for a high-consequence publish action.

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% and both parameters are documented there, including an unusually detailed confirm two-step flow, so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, which lands at the baseline of 3.

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), the resource (journey), and the concrete effect: draft changes become the next live version, triggered people enter, and emails send. This is materially different from siblings like resume_journey, pause_journey, test_journey, and discard_journey_draft, and an agent can distinguish them 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?

The description implies when this applies (a journey with draft changes ready to go live) but never names alternatives such as test_journey for a dry run or resume_journey for a paused-but-published journey. The real when-to-use guidance lives in the schema's confirm parameter description, not in the tool description, so usage guidance here is only implied.

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