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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, idempotent, open-world mutation; the description goes well beyond them by enumerating exactly what becomes publicly visible (display name, goals, KPIs, verdicts) and what is explicitly excluded (email, notes, keys). For a sharing tool, that data-exposure surface is the single most important behavioral fact and it is stated directly.

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?

Two short sentences with the consent gate front-loaded, followed by the two mode behaviors in parallel structure. Every clause carries information an agent needs; nothing is padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully states that public=true returns a public URL and what that page contains. The remaining gap is revocation semantics: it does not say whether previously shared URLs stop working after public=false, which matters for an idempotent toggle.

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 only 50% — the api_key parameter is documented in-schema but the required `public` boolean has no schema description. The description compensates by defining both branches of that boolean, including the return of a public URL on the true branch, which is meaning the schema alone does not convey.

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 makes the resource (the public progress report) and the two outcomes (public=true publishes and returns a URL, public=false hides) unambiguous, so an agent knows exactly what state change it is requesting. It stops short of a single crisp verb phrase like 'Publish or unpublish', but the effect is clear 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?

'Use this only with your owner's OK' supplies an explicit consent precondition, which is the key gating rule for a publishing action. There is no sibling that also toggles report visibility, so the absence of named alternatives is not a real gap, though there is no guidance on when to prefer staying hidden by default.

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