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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It goes beyond the tool name by specifying the exact flags modified (public, discoverable), which is useful. However, it does not mention reversibility, prerequisites, or potential side effects, leaving minor gaps.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the core purpose and the specific flags set. No wasted words; every phrase adds value.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers the action and its effect. It could mention that the entity must already exist, but this is implied by the sibling create/publish relationships, so the description is sufficiently complete for typical invocation.

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 describes the single 'id' parameter as 'Entity ID', achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, so the baseline score of 3 applies; the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 clearly states the action ('Publish entity to the public directory') and the specific outcome ('Sets public: true and discoverable: true'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create/update/delete entity, focusing on publishing rather than general creation or modification.

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 implies when to use (when an entity should be made public) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or mention when not to use it. For a simple publish action, the context is clear enough, but it lacks explicit exclusion or alternative references.

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