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

Beyond the annotations (destructive, openWorld, non-idempotent), it explains the two execution modes: immediate on a Full control connection, or returning a confirmationId and waiting for approval otherwise. That is genuinely useful behavioral detail an agent cannot get from the schema, though it does not say whether publishing can be undone or what happens to an existing site.

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 short front-loaded sentences that lead with the action and then the gating condition. 'Needs the person's yes' is restated as 'waits for the owner's yes', which is mild redundancy but keeps the approval requirement salient.

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 an output schema present and only one fully documented parameter, the description covers what an agent needs to call it: the approval gate and the two response paths. The unexplained 'this video' reference and the absence of any guidance on how to detect connection type are the only gaps.

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 the schema already explains that listingId comes from list_listings. The description adds no meaning about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: 'Publish or update the listing website'. The qualifier 'with this video' is a bit loose since the only parameter is listingId, but the action is unambiguous and distinguishable from authoring siblings like set_listing_basics or start_video.

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?

Conveys that human consent is required and that execution depends on the connection type, which is real usage context. It never names the sibling tools an agent would need to complete the flow (get_confirmation, confirm_action) or states when to prefer publish over merely starting a listing, so routing is left implied.

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