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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-destructive but mutating write (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: published versions are what share links point at, so a sent link is frozen while work continues. It does not cover permission/auth requirements or what the returned version looks like.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the rationale plus usage condition. No filler, no repetition of the title or schema.

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 low-complexity 3-parameter tool with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the conceptual model (versioned publish, frozen share links) and usage timing. The only real gap is that the required interfaceId is never referenced anywhere in prose, but the schema's required list covers it.

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 67%: note and workspace are documented in the schema, but the required interfaceId has no description, and the description itself never mentions any parameter. With the schema already carrying most of the param meaning, the baseline of 3 applies and the description adds nothing to compensate for the undocumented required parameter.

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?

"Save where an interface is now as a numbered version" states a specific verb (save/publish) and a specific resource outcome (a numbered interface version), which is a meaningfully different operation from siblings like napkin_interfaces_write or napkin_interfaces_create. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 gives an explicit trigger ("when the user says it's ready to show people") and an explicit exclusion ("not after every edit"), which is strong when-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming the alternative tool to use for ordinary edits, leaving that inference to the agent.

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