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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds the concrete consequences: an update replaces the existing public text, and retrying the same draftId does not create a duplicate. It also clarifies the stale/expired draft path, which the annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with the publish action, then prerequisites, then edge cases (idempotency, staleness). Every sentence adds a distinct constraint; none restates the tool name or 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?

For a destructive, public-facing mutation with no output schema, the description covers preconditions and side effects well. The one gap is that it never says what a successful publish returns (e.g., a public URL or report reference), which an agent may need for follow-up messaging.

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 does: it explains draftId's origin, that digest must be unchanged, the consentVersion literal, and the gating condition on approved. It does not explain what 'unchanged digest' means cryptographically, but that is reasonably covered by the schema's 64-hex pattern.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Publish the saved installation report preview') and names the exact scope ('under the connected user's public co.build account'). It is immediately distinguishable from its siblings prepare_installation_report and withdraw_installation_report.

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 spells out the required workflow (draftId returned by prepare_installation_report, unchanged digest, consentVersion, approved:true only after approval) and explicitly excludes false positives ('OAuth consent and installation completion are not publication approval'). It also states when not to use the existing draft ('a stale or expired draft requires a new preview and new approval').

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