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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent, closed-world), so the description only needs to add context. It contributes the notion that the produced revision is immutable, which is useful, but it omits key behavior: whether the publication goes live immediately or requires a separate activation step, and what happens on a stale expectedCurrentPublicationId.

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, and the republish instruction is placed after the primary purpose statement. The only structural weakness is that the ambiguous word 'Preview' sits in the most prominent position.

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 an 11-parameter, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description is far too thin. It does not explain the concurrency contract implied by expectedSpecVersion/expectedCurrentPublicationId, the role of idempotencyKey, or the relationship to map_publication_activate, leaving the agent to guess at correct usage.

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% across 11 parameters, so the description carries the full explanatory burden and largely fails it. It explains only targetMapId and expectedCurrentPublicationId; projectId, expectedSpecVersion (an optimistic-concurrency guard), idempotencyKey, ownerHandle, visibility, slug, title, and embedEnabled are left undocumented anywhere.

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 names a verb and resource ('publishing a project as a new immutable map revision'), so the agent can tell it is a publish operation on maps. However, the leading word 'Preview' is ambiguous for a tool whose annotations declare readOnlyHint=false: an agent could read this as a dry-run that changes nothing, when it actually creates a revision. The sibling set also contains geobble_map_publication_activate, and the description never clarifies how publish differs from activate.

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 second sentence gives an explicit conditional trigger: set targetMapId and expectedCurrentPublicationId to republish rather than create a new map, which tells the agent how to select republish mode. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to use map_publication_activate or map_publication_list instead), so it is clear context without full routing.

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