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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false), and the description goes beyond by explaining the transition from draft to live, potential rejection with `problems`, and a specific permission requirement (form:publish). This adds useful context beyond the annotations, though it doesn't detail side effects like whether previous live version is overwritten or preserved.

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?

The description is concise, with the primary purpose first, followed by usage guidance and a note on failure conditions. Every sentence earns its place, though the requirement for form:publish permission could be more prominent.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description covers purpose, usage, failure conditions, and permission needs. It doesn't detail the response structure on success, but since there is no output schema and the operation result is likely simple, this is minor. Overall it provides sufficient context for correct invocation.

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 the schema already documents the single parameter `formId`. The description does not add extra semantics beyond what's in the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the action (publish), the resource (form's draft), and the outcome (live version submitters fill in). It cogently distinguishes from siblings like publish_template or update_form_draft, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

Explicitly instructs when to use: only when the user explicitly asked to publish, and explicitly warns against chaining onto create or import operations. It also mentions rejection with `problems` for invalid definitions, providing clear conditions and expectations.

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