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

Annotations cover the safety profile, and the description adds value beyond them: it discloses the edit-access requirement, the fact that it is not refused on an empty world, and the `playable`/`undrafted: false` outcome semantics. It stops short of describing side effects on existing visitors or sessions.

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?

Front-loads the core action and outcome, then layers edge cases. Every sentence carries information, though it is dense and slightly long for a single-operation tool.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by explaining return fields (`playable`, `undrafted`), the auth requirement, and the no-op path. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and interpret the result.

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 100% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: what `visibility` defaults to when omitted (the draft's intended visibility, public unless drafted unlisted) and what 'private' does to a draft. That is semantics beyond the enum descriptions.

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+resource ('take a draft world out of draft') and the precise outcome: it becomes the visibility it was created for or the passed `visibility`. The line 'the one step that makes a draft world openable by other people' distinguishes it from sibling visibility/launch tools an agent might otherwise confuse it with.

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?

Gives clear triggering context (undrafting a draft, requires edit access) and clarifies the no-op case for non-drafts. It does not explicitly name or rule out sibling alternatives (e.g., world.launch), so routing is implied rather than spelled out.

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