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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation risk is known. The description adds useful context by saying publishing includes history and excludes the catalogue, but it does not explain what publishing replaces, overwrites, or how expected_revision protects against conflicts.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The main action and the key exclusion are front-loaded, making the description easy to parse quickly.

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?

The description is too sparse for an agent to call this tool correctly: it lacks parameter semantics, does not explain the required expected_revision, and does not clarify what 'with history' means operationally. The destructive annotation helps, but the description still leaves important behavioral gaps.

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 the description does not mention catalogue_id or expected_revision at all. The required revision parameter is especially important because its meaning as a validation or concurrency token is not conveyed anywhere in the description.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Publishes') and resource ('interactive elements'), and explicitly states it does not publish the catalogue itself. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling foliade_publish_catalogue.

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 description implies its scope by saying it does not publish the catalogue, which hints that foliade_publish_catalogue is the alternative. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over related tools like foliade_update_enrichments or foliade_restore_enrichments.

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