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

Annotations already flag destructive=true and openWorld=true, but the description goes well beyond: it discloses the Admin Token requirement (and that the API token is rejected on admin routes), explains the admin_token_invalid remediation path, and notes v4 single types are unsupported while v5 single types skip entry_id validation. This is exactly the extra auth/mutation context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and then version behavior, error handling, and parameter notes follow logically. It is dense but slightly over-weighted toward the token/error narrative, which could be tightened without losing meaning.

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, token-gated mutation tool with 0% schema coverage, the description supplies auth requirements, version-specific semantics, and per-parameter constraints. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained; nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description must carry all parameter meaning — and it does. It documents collection as an API-ID excluding plugin routes, entry_id as documentId or numeric ID with allowed characters, locale as the i18n language selection, and workspace as an optional slug, each with its failure error code.

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 and resource: 'Einen Strapi-Eintrag veröffentlichen' (publish a Strapi entry). The v5/v4 distinction adds precision. It stops short of naming strapi_unpublish_entry as its counterpart, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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 clear operating context: v5 uses the content-manager publish action and needs an Admin Token, v4 sets publishedAt to now, and locale selects which language version is published. It explains when workspace is optional and which error codes route to remediation, though it never contrasts explicitly with the unpublish sibling.

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