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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true) it discloses the authentication requirement, the immediate public exposure to customers, the versioning side effect (creates a new numbered version rather than overwriting history), and a mandatory confirmation protocol. These are exactly the behavioral facts an agent needs before calling a mutating, externally visible tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the access constraint and primary action, followed by the alternative mode and the confirmation rule. The long first sentence packs several ideas but each clause adds necessary information; there is no filler.

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 single-optional-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers access, effect, version semantics, and confirmation, which is nearly everything needed. It does not say what the tool returns (e.g., the new version identifier) or what happens if no draft exists, which are minor residual 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: it explains that version_id is optional (omit to publish the draft), where the value comes from (my_page versions), and what passing it does (re-publish an earlier version as a new version). It does not state the string format or length, but the meaning is clear.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource (publish the business page draft) and describes both operating modes: advancing the draft to its next numbered version, or republishing an earlier version via version_id. It also implicitly separates itself from publish_website by talking about the business page and referencing my_page versions as the source of version_id.

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?

Gives clear conditions: owners only with sign-in, and use version_id only when the owner wants an earlier version live again. It also prescribes a workflow (show the draft first, publish only on confirmation). It stops short of stating when to prefer this over a sibling such as publish_website, but the guidance for invoking it is unambiguous.

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