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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: new agreements adopt the version immediately, existing agreements remain pinned, identical definitions are a no-op returning the current version, and publisher identity is required. This aligns with the idempotent and destructive hints without contradicting them.

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 sentences, each carrying distinct necessary information, with the primary action and immediate effect front-loaded. There is no repetitive or filler language.

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?

Given the mutation/versioning behavior, nested schema, and annotations, the description covers the essential semantics an agent needs: what publishing does, how existing agreements are affected, idempotent no-op behavior, and publisher requirements. An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not needed.

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?

The description reinforces that user_email or user_id is required to record the publisher, which is also documented in the schema. With 50% schema description coverage, it does not add much detail about the template id or YAML definition beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Publish a new YAML version of a custom template.' It clearly distinguishes this from creating a template or updating template metadata by emphasizing version publishing, and the sibling names make the distinction easy to infer.

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 explains the key usage effect: new agreements use the published version while existing agreements keep their pinned version. It does not explicitly name when to use this versus update-custom-template, but the versioning context is clear enough for selection.

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