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

Annotations already cover idempotency, safety, and closed-world scope, so the burden is light. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the editToken must be supplied for anonymous demo pages, and the response's nextSteps field must always be surfaced to the user (claim reminder, remaining improvements). It does not restate the annotation hints.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the action, then trigger, then anti-trigger, then the token/response handling. No sentence is filler; each carries a distinct constraint.

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?

A plus an output schema covers return values, and the description still flags the one response behavior that matters (always relay nextSteps). Nothing needed to call or act on this tool is missing.

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% and the schema already documents both parameters, including that editToken is required for anonymous demo pages — the description largely repeats that. It adds only workflow framing (where the token came from) rather than new semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 the latest page revision') with scoping detail that separates it from page_unpublish and the page_create family. An agent can identify the operation 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 an explicit trigger ('only when the user's latest message explicitly asks to publish, make the page live, or get a public share link') plus an explicit anti-trigger ('Do not call this immediately after page_create or page_create_from_brief just because the draft is publish-ready'). This is the when/when-not pattern at its best.

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