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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false; the description carries the real behavioral load: no human approval gate, idempotent retry via request_id, the critical 'head_changed conflict saves nothing' failure mode, and an explicit restriction that operator promises and policies cannot be edited here. These are exactly the non-obvious traits an agent needs.

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?

Four dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and each subsequent sentence adds distinct information (required payload, idempotency, conflict recovery, edit restrictions). No filler or restatement of the name.

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 mutation tool with a nested document schema, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description covers the essential behavioral surface: approval semantics, idempotency, conflict handling, and prohibited content. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is only 17%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it assigns meaning to request_id (random, reused for retries), document (full document), reason, and expected_revision_id. It leaves draft_id and contributor_key unexplained, though the schema supplies a description for contributor_key, so the gap is partial.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Publish an edit') and its scope ('immediately, without human approval'), clearly distinguishing it from a draft/suggest flow. It gestures at the fork sibling as an alternative but never names a sibling tool exactly, so it falls just short of the top tier.

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 gives clear usage context: publish immediately rather than awaiting approval, retry with the same request_id, and how to react to a head_changed conflict ('reconcile, then use a new request_id, or fork'). The only gap is that it never explicitly states the inverse cases (when to prefer discuss_agreement/suggest/adopt_agreement).

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