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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), and the description adds real value beyond them: the exact cost ($0.01, free on failure) and the guarantee that the draft is untouched. It stops short of saying whether the current live version is retained or what failure looks like beyond billing.

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 short sentences, each carrying a distinct fact (action, draft side-effect, cost), with the core action front-loaded. Nothing is redundant.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers cost, side effects on the draft, and where to get the version value. Additional detail on what happens to the live site's prior version would make it fully complete, but nothing essential to a correct call 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 50%; 'site' is documented in the schema, while 'version' has no description. The description compensates by grounding 'version' in 'one of the kept versions' and naming website_get as the way to enumerate valid values, which gives the otherwise bare integer meaning.

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 — republishing a kept version — and the phrase 'kept versions' separates it from website_publish, which publishes current live content. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 points to website_get as the source of the version list, which gives an agent the prerequisite workflow. It does not explicitly state when to prefer website_publish over rollback, so the alternative-path guidance is implied rather than spelled out.

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