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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true, openWorld=true), so the description only needs to add context — and it does, by revealing the real-world effect that the draft becomes purchasable by buyers. It stops short of saying whether publishing can be undone or how to revert, which would be valuable for an open-world mutation.

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 action and its effect, then the gating rule, then the credential hint. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers action, precondition, and parameter sourcing. It would be stronger if it indicated what the agent gets back or whether the draft ID remains valid after publishing.

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% and both parameters are fully documented in the schema, so the description's mention of agent_key duplicates rather than extends it. Baseline 3 applies; no additional semantics (format, validation, failure modes) are contributed.

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?

A specific verb and resource ('Put an approved draft on the store') with the business consequence spelled out ('so buyers can purchase it'). This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like create_product (which makes the draft) and open_store (which supplies the key).

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?

'Only call this after the user approves the draft' is an explicit, actionable precondition that tells the agent when to invoke it and implicitly when not to. No alternative tool is named, but none exists in this sibling set, so the gap is minor.

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