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

Annotations already declare write (readOnlyHint=false), openWorld, idempotent and non-destructive. The description adds real context beyond them: an immutable revision is created, specific URLs and install notes are returned, auth is required and guests get 401 with an OAuth redirect. It stops short of saying what happens to any prior published revision or on an expectedConfigVersion mismatch.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and its effect, then conditions, then auth. No filler; every clause carries operational information.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return values need not be explained in detail (they are mentioned helpfully anyway). Prerequisites, auth behavior and the call condition are all present. The remaining gap is the semantics of expectedConfigVersion as a concurrency guard, which neither schema nor description nails down.

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 coverage is only 33% – only idempotencyKey is documented. The description hints that expectedConfigVersion names the version being published, but does not explain that it acts as a guard or what a mismatch does, and datasetId is never clarified. Partial compensation for a real coverage 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?

Specific verb and resource: 'Make the named configVersion of a dataset public: cuts an immutable revision.' The phrase 'cuts an immutable revision' and the returned artifact list (public API, page and compare URLs, install notes) clearly separate this from siblings like atlas_dataset_update or atlas_dataset_archive.

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?

Explicit gating: 'Call it only when the user asked for a public comparison' states a when-not condition, plus a prerequisite ('at least two tools with verified plans') and an auth condition ('signed-in inite.ai account: a guest call answers 401 and starts the OAuth flow'). Nothing about invocation eligibility is left to inference.

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