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

Rich behavioral disclosure beyond annotations: the draft leaves the Drafts count, existing-page drafts close SEO to-dos/briefs immediately while new-page drafts wait for a crawl confirming title and H1, and unknown drafts are refused with code not_found. However, it states 'Idempotent: the same call again changes nothing (changed: false)', which directly conflicts with the annotation idempotentHint=false, undercutting the otherwise detailed disclosure.

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, then the identifier, escapable url, and the side effects. Dense but every sentence carries information; only the crawl/publish timing sentence is a bit compressed and requires rereading.

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?

Covers prerequisites (draft_id source), optional url behavior, side effects (Drafts count, to-do/brief closure), the failure mode (not_found), and the changed flag; an output schema exists so return values need no elaboration. The only gap is the unresolved idempotency claim.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning for url: it is a full address on this site's own domain and may be omitted to retain the draft's or page's existing address. draft_id's provenance (from cvl_seo_drafts/cvl_seo_draft) is also given; fields is left to the schema.

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 ('say a page draft is live', 'the SEO room's Mark published') and names the sibling tools that produce the identifier (cvl_seo_drafts / cvl_seo_draft). An agent can distinguish this from other cvl_seo_* tools without opening the schema.

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 clear usage context: name the draft by draft_id, supply url or omit it to keep the existing address, and notes that a finished crawl can publish such a draft on its own (an implicit when-not-necessary). It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over waiting for a crawl, but the alternatives are clearly surfaced.

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