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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description goes far beyond, disclosing that the live version keeps serving until approval, that unchanged files are a no-op, that attestation 'own-work' is mandatory, that a diff is computed, and that an auto-drafted changelog is submitted for review.

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 core action and scoping, then progressively adds the diff/no-op/approval mechanics and routing. It is dense but nearly every sentence carries distinct information; the routing list is long yet justified by the crowded sibling namespace.

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?

A mutation tool with an output schema (so returns needn't be explained), one required enum plus an optional enum, and annotations covering safety. The description covers provenance rules, approval flow, no-op behavior, and cross-tool routing, leaving no significant gap for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains files maps path→text 'exactly as findagent_create_package_draft takes them, with the same skill rules and caps', clarifies the slug must be your own published uploaded agent, and repeats the attestation constraint.

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: 'Publish a NEW version of YOUR OWN published skills agent that was UPLOADED (not imported from GitHub)'. The scope qualifiers (own, uploaded-not-imported, from text files) make it immediately distinguishable from siblings like findagent_repull, findagent_new_version, and findagent_bump_version.

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?

Explicitly says when NOT to use it ('An agent imported from GitHub is refused... re-versions by re-pulling its repository with findagent_repull') and names the alternative. It also closes with a 'which tool for which part' routing paragraph mapping instructions/code/MCP/listing to findagent_create_package_draft, findagent_create_code_draft, findagent_create_remote_mcp, and findagent_create_draft.

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