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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it clarifies what is and is not affected ('Preserves other pending Studio changes') and the blocking state for theme switches. It does not address reversibility/undo or what the response contains, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with the action and gating requirement, then prerequisites, then scope caveats. No filler and no repetition of the title or annotations.

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 destructive one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers intent gating, prerequisite reads, exact-revision sourcing, and scope of effects — everything needed to call it safely. Only a note on what the publish returns or confirms would close the gap.

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% with a single 'revision' parameter, so the baseline would be 3. The description earns above baseline by specifying provenance and strictness: the revision must come from get_design and be used exactly, which is meaning the schema's 'Exact quoted design revision' does not convey on its own.

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 ('Make ... live') and precise resource scope: supported native settings plus custom CSS from the current Design Studio draft, including native edits saved in the UI. An agent can tell this apart from update_design (draft edits) and publish_content (content publishing) without opening any schema.

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 an explicit gating condition ('Requires explicit user intent to publish'), an ordered prerequisite workflow ('Read get_design and review the draft first; use its exact revision'), and an exclusion path: a pending theme switch must be published in Design Studio first. This is when/when-not/alternatives coverage in compressed form.

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