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

Adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: non-faith changes deploy now, faith words mint a card that ships on a single tap, the agent never blesses faith words, and CI link-safety fails closed. Also discloses the approval flow. No contradiction with annotations (destructiveHint=true aligns with a publish operation).

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 dense but every sentence carries information: the action, trigger, preconditions, special case, and approval note. It's front-loaded with the primary instruction. Slightly long but not wasteful.

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 write-tier mutation with no output schema, it covers all necessary call context: when to call, preconditions, behavior for both faith and non-faith changes, approval handling, and CI guard. An agent can invoke it correctly with the given information.

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?

The sole parameter companyId is fully described in the schema (coverage 100%), so the description doesn't need to add more. The phrase 'THIS COMPANY'S' ties it to companyId context but doesn't add new semantics beyond the schema.

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+resource ('Publish THIS COMPANY'S hub site') and gives the exact trigger ('CALL THIS when a hub change is ready to go live'). It also notes the precondition (only works if hub is configured), distinguishing it from generic publish tools like publish_site.

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 specifies when to call ('ready to go live') and the condition ('only works for a company that has its own hub configured'). It does not explicitly name alternatives but the when-to-use guidance is clear enough to route an agent.

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