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

Beyond the annotations it adds real behavioral context: the call does not go live immediately but issues a secure human review request (which mitigates the flagged destructiveHint), the request_id enables safe retry, and credentials are entered out-of-band rather than in the call. It still does not say what state changes upon approval, keeping it below 5.

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?

Three tight clauses with the action and its outcome front-loaded and no filler. The telegraphic fragments leave some ambiguity (e.g. 'credentials entered privately'), but the sizing is appropriate.

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 5-required-parameter, nested-array, destructive publishing tool with no output schema, the description is thin: it never explains revision semantics, the fingerprint requirement, or how the review request resolves. An agent can identify the tool but not invoke it confidently.

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 40% (request_id and organization_id carry descriptions), so the description must compensate for revision, connection_id and the nested tools[].id/fingerprint. The lone hint about request_id merely restates the schema's own description; nothing explains what revision or fingerprint must be.

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 ('Publish exact tested definitions') and the audience scope ('for selected AI access'), clearly separable from beon_test_custom_tool and beon_register_custom_tool. It does not explicitly name which sibling to use instead, so it stops short of 5.

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?

'exact tested definitions' implies this is the step after testing, and 'Returns a secure human review request' implies it is a submission-for-approval action, but no condition or alternative is stated. Usage is only inferable, not spelled out.

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