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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true), so the description only needs to add context — and it does: it discloses that the identifier is preserved and that password/access fields are untouched. It does not say whether a guest_token is required or what happens on a re-publish, leaving minor gaps.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the effect and the usage restriction, then the boundary with the sibling tool. No filler or repetition of the title.

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?

With annotations carrying idempotency and safety and no output schema to explain, the description is nearly sufficient, but it omits the prerequisite implied by the title (the catalogue must already be a draft) and gives no hint about the guest_token parameter for what is otherwise a bare two-parameter mutation.

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 0% and neither of the two parameters is explained. 'Keeps its identifier' only faintly implies catalogue_id stability, and guest_token is entirely undocumented in both schema and description, so the definition fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 effect ('makes the catalogue public') on a named resource, and explicitly delimits itself from the sibling foliade_set_catalogue_access, which handles password/addresses. An agent can distinguish the operation from other catalogue tools without opening a 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?

'On explicit request only' gives a clear usage condition, and the second sentence routes password/address changes to foliade_set_catalogue_access, an explicit alternative. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over foliade_unpublish_catalogue or what state the catalogue must be in first.

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