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

Annotations only say not-read-only, idempotent-ish and non-destructive; the description supplies the real behavioral payload — held versions go live, tag names are unique per page and move between versions, readers see the newest tagged version, and subscriber reminders fire only when a new tag lands on the version readers see. That is exactly the consequence-level detail an agent cannot infer from annotations or schema.

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 action, then the rules. The three numbered rules are dense, multi-clause sentences that edge toward documentation prose, but each carries a distinct behavioral fact (visibility, tag movement, notification) and none 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 2-parameter mutation with full schema coverage, no output schema and non-destructive annotations, the description covers what changes for readers, what triggers notifications, and how tags compose with publishing tools. The remaining unknowns (return payload, error/no-op when re-tagging the same version) are minor.

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% and already documents version_id ("from list_versions") and the tag union type, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine semantic value beyond the schema: naming conventions (ISO-style dates, short names, daily reports use the day's date) and the effect of reusing an existing tag name.

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 ("Give one version of a page a tag") and immediately grounds it with concrete tag examples (a date, "v2 final"). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like delete_tag, publish_version and publish_file, and it even cross-references them as alternative routes.

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 covers the main usage nuance (tagging a held version makes it live; tagging an older version does not pull readers back) and names the alternative path — supplying the tag parameter on publish_file / finalize_upload / publish_version instead of calling this tool. It stops short of stating when not to use it (e.g., removing a tag belongs to delete_tag).

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