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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: the previous version is retained for revert_update, a 60-day quiet period follows, evaluation is split between search and content parts with automatic per-part revert, and the call is public and immediate. It also discloses the confirmToken summary-then-confirm protocol, which is the operational behavior an agent most 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?

Front-loads the core action and consequence, then the confirmation protocol. The middle passage on per-part judgment metrics is dense but earns its place by explaining what happens after publishing; minor tightening possible but no filler.

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 what the first call returns (a summary and token), the eventual outcome (auto-revert of worse-performing parts), and the irreversibility/visibility profile. That is sufficient for a destructive, non-idempotent 3-parameter tool.

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%; site and confirmToken are documented in the schema, and the description reinforces the confirmToken semantics ('first call returns a summary and a confirmToken; call again with confirmToken to proceed'). updateId remains undocumented in both places, but the description meaningfully adds to the confirmation parameter.

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 ('Publish a ready update draft to the live page'), plus the scope constraint that it applies to update drafts rather than articles or location pages. An agent can distinguish this from publish_draft or publish_article_from_builder by the resource named.

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 prerequisite ('Read the draft first' via list_update_opportunities with includeHtml or draft_update's result) and describes the two-step confirm flow. It does not explicitly exclude adjacent publishing siblings, but the read-first requirement and draft precondition are clear context for use.

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