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

Annotations only flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false; the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: existing versions and comments are preserved, quiet=true suppresses notification to both workspace people and subscribers, and releasing a held version inherits the upload-time quiet choice unless overridden. That is exactly the kind of side-effect and notification context annotations cannot convey.

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?

The prose is front-loaded and every sentence carries behavioral information, but the trailing keyword list ('publish · web page · webpage · link · share ...') is search-engine stuffing that adds length without helping an agent decide or invoke.

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, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers the state transition, approval gate, preservation guarantees and notification semantics. The main remaining gap is that it never states what the tool returns or how to detect success/failure.

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 67% and the description meaningfully extends it: it explains the audience affected by quiet ('workspace people or subscribers'), the inheritance rule for held versions, and the notification consequence. version_id itself is undocumented, so it is not a complete semantic picture.

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+resource ('Make an approved version ... publish live, or roll back to an earlier approved version'), with a clear scope that separates it from preview_version, read_version, list_versions and revoke_versions. An agent can tell what state transition this performs 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?

Gives an explicit precondition: 'Call only after the user explicitly approves publishing or rolling back,' plus a caveat that approved uploads without hold may already be live. It does not name alternative siblings (e.g., publish_file) or say when to prefer rollback vs. publish, so it stops short of 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.