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

Annotations already declare non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world. The description adds genuinely non-structured context: the previous design is retained as a restoreable version, publishing costs $0.01, and failures are free. It does not address behavior if no draft exists or re-publish idempotency, leaving a small gap.

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 tight sentences with the operative action front-loaded, followed by reversibility, then consent and cost. Every sentence carries distinct, useful information.

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 zero-param mutation with annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what changes, reversibility, required consent, and cost/failure behavior. It omits preconditions such as whether a draft must exist before 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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for parameter semantics to add. Baseline for a 0-param tool applies.

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 with a clear scope: publishes the DRAFT design so visitors see it. That implicitly distinguishes it from help_center_update_design (editing the draft) and help_center_preview, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

"Ask the owner before publishing unless they asked you to" gives a concrete consent precondition for use. It stops short of naming alternatives such as previewing first, so it is clear context without full when/when-not routing.

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