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

Annotations flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description explains why: publishing replaces what viewers see immediately and produces a new version vN retained in revision history — effectively disclosing reversibility. It also names concrete failure modes with reasons, states required scopes (demos:read, demos:publish), and describes the return payload, which is far beyond what the annotations provide.

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 verb and effect lead; failure conditions, return values, and required scopes follow in descending order of importance. Two short paragraphs, no filler, every clause carries load-bearing information.

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 supplies the return contract (hosted URL and embed code), plus preconditions, auth scopes, and side effects. For a single-parameter publish operation, nothing an agent needs in order to call it or interpret failure is missing.

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% — demoId is documented with a format pattern and a pointer to list_demos — so the schema already carries the parameter burden. The description adds nothing about demoId (e.g., that it must reference a draft rather than an already-published demo), so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

"Publishes the current draft" is a precise verb+resource statement, and the follow-on sentence describes the exact effect (viewers of the hosted link, embeds and collections see it immediately). This cleanly separates it from sibling mutations like update_demo, duplicate_demo, and unpublish_demo without needing to name them.

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?

The description gives a clear context for use (current draft → live for viewers) and explains what blocks the call: "no steps, a broken link" or the plan's published-demo limit. It does not explicitly route to a sibling (e.g., unpublish_demo to take a demo down, or update_demo to fix steps first), so it stops just short of full when/when-not guidance.

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