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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent write with destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes beyond that by disclosing the authorization requirement ('Team owners only') and the optimistic-concurrency precondition ('at its expected revision'), though it omits what happens on a revision mismatch or whether the operation is reversible.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, with the core action and the revision precondition front-loaded. Every clause carries information; nothing is repeated from the schema 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 mutation tool with a nested policy object, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations describing failure behavior, the definition is too thin. It leaves the shape of the policy payload and the consequence of a stale revision unexplained, which an agent needs before invoking a publish operation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it only clarifies one of three parameters — 'at its expected revision' gives meaning to expectedRevision. organizationId and especially the nested 'policy' object are completely unspecified anywhere, which is a meaningful gap for a write tool.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Publish a Team sync policy'), which clearly separates it from read-oriented siblings like get_team_sync_policy. However, it never mentions the closely related preview_team_sync_policy or clarifies the relationship between previewing and publishing, so sibling differentiation is only implied by the verb.

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 adds one useful precondition ('Team owners only'), which tells the agent this is not for general members. It does not say when to publish versus when to preview via preview_team_sync_policy, nor whether a preview should precede the publish, so usage guidance is only partially implied.

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