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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description usefully adds the effect on new sends. It does not address the non-idempotent trait (what a second publish does), whether publishing is reversible (no unpublish-template sibling exists), or permission requirements.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with the action and its consequence, zero 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?

For a one-parameter state-change tool with no output schema, the description conveys the essential effect. Minor gaps remain around repeat publishing and reversibility, which is the only thing an agent might still need to reason about.

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 single `id` parameter is documented in the schema with its tem_xxx format, so the description need not add parameter detail. Baseline 3 applies since the description adds nothing about parameter semantics.

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 (publish) on a specific resource (the current template draft) and adds the outcome ('new sends use it'). This clearly separates it from create-template, update-template and get-template, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.

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 phrase 'so new sends use it' implies the usage context (promote a finished draft into the live version), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no prerequisite that the draft be finalized, and no mention of what happens on re-publish.

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