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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=true, and non-idempotent, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the side effect that each action leaves a fresh draft for later edits, and the return contract (previousStatus/status). It does not discuss reversibility or permissions, but with annotations carrying the destructive signal this is a solid contribution.

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-loaded with purpose, then verb semantics, then return values, then exclusions, so the agent can stop reading early. Slightly redundant because the verb-to-effect mapping is repeated verbatim in the schema, but the description remains dense and purposeful.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything needed: when to call it, what each enum does, what it returns, and what it is not. No material gap remains.

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. The description goes further by framing 'status' as an action verb, warning against passing version statuses, and mapping each enum value to its effect and its resulting return values, which helps the agent avoid a common invocation error.

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 states a specific verb and resource (change a document's lifecycle) and enumerates the exact operations (snapshot, review, publish) with what each does. It actively differentiates from siblings by naming 'move' as the wrong tool and distinguishing the action verbs from version statuses.

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 triggering condition is given ('when the user wants a snapshot, a review, or to publish'), alternatives are ruled out ('Not move, which files documents and folders into a folder'), and a mistaken usage is precluded ('not a way to check whether an edit is still running').

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