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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is partly covered, but the description adds genuinely non-obvious semantics: publishing produces a numbered version that share links bind to, so previously shared recipients keep a stable view. It doesn't clarify whether this replaces the prior published version or how publish relates to the version count, so it stops short of full disclosure.

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 tight sentences front-loaded with the core action, then the versioning rationale, then the usage trigger. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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 mutation tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers what the operation means and when to invoke it. It omits what a successful publish returns or exposes (e.g., version identifier/link), but the core guidance an agent needs is present.

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, while 'interfaceId' is undocumented in both places. The description adds no parameter-level detail (no syntax or format for interfaceId), so this sits at the baseline for a mid-coverage schema.

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 ('Save where an interface is now as a numbered version') and captures the snapshot/versioning nature of the action. By contrasting it against ongoing edits ('not after every edit'), it effectively distinguishes this from the write/edit sibling.

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 when-to-use ('when the user says it's ready to show people') and when-not ('not after every edit'). Both the trigger condition and the exclusion are stated, leaving little to inference.

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