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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the bar is lower — yet the description still adds real behavior: it creates a new version and only swaps visitor routing 'once every file is written', disclosing an all-or-nothing publish characteristic not expressed by any annotation.

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, no filler, with the core action ('make live') front-loaded and the operational caveat second. Every clause carries information.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool with a rich annotation set, the description covers what is produced (a new version) and what changes (visitor routing). It stops short of naming the recovery path (rollback_configuration) or any permission requirements, which would make an irreversible-feeling publish fully self-contained.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rules the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to clarify, and it correctly does not invent parameter semantics.

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?

Specific verb-plus-resource: it states it publishes (makes live) the current territories, which is clearly distinct from siblings like list_territories, create_territory, or rollback_configuration. An agent can identify the operation without opening the 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?

The phrase 'make the current territories live' implies when this is used, and the sibling set contains adjacent tools (apply_configuration, rollback_configuration, propose_configuration), but the description never names an alternative or states a precondition for choosing this one over them.

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