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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the immutability of the version, the hash-based identity, and the idempotent behavior for identical content. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema. It doesn't mention side effects like whether publishing affects the active template or requires permissions, but the core behavioral traits are well covered.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The key behavioral facts (immutability, hash identity, idempotency) are front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what publishing means, the identity model, and the deduplication behavior. It doesn't explain return values or error cases, but given the simplicity of the tool and full schema coverage, the description is largely complete. A small gap is not stating what happens to the existing template or how to retrieve the published version.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameters themselves, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema fully covers them.

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 ('Publish') and resource ('immutable template version'), and clarifies the identity model (hash of compiled content). It distinguishes itself from template_create/update/archive siblings by focusing on publishing a version, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 implies this is the tool to call when you want to create a published, immutable version of a template, and notes that identical content won't create a second version. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs template_create/update, nor does it mention prerequisites like whether the template must exist or be in a certain state.

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