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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses concrete side effects: it generates a PDF and a document hash)Skip confirmation step, and positions publishing as a step before signing. No contradiction with the read/write/destructive hints.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then effects, then required confirmation and next step. No filler or repetition of the 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?

With a single well-documented parameter, the destructive nature is annotated, and the description covers purpose, side effects, and the follow-up action. It does not describe prerequisites or state constraints for the revision, but the overall workflow is sufficiently complete.

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?

The schema already documents revision_id as 'The ULID of the draft revision to publish' with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level nuance, so it stays at the baseline.

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 names a specific action ('Publish a draft document revision'), the exact resource ('document revision'), and the purpose ('so it can be sent for electronic signature'). It clearly differentiates this publishing step from related siblings such as send-signing-request and update-document-revision.

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?

It gives useful procedural guidance: confirm with the user before publishing an irreversible actionaine and use send-signing-request afterward. It does not spell out when to avoid publishing (e.g., wrong revision state), but the workflow direction is clear.

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