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

Annotations only say this is a destructive, idempotent, open-world write. The description adds substantial behavior beyond that: the URL is preserved, the previous version is retained as history, and the edit re-enters review before it becomes visible. The 24-hour window is a hard operational constraint the annotations do not express.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the time constraint, then consequences, then the hard limit. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the title or schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description must explain the effect of the call, and it does: same link, version retained, re-review before display. For a 12-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but 'Send only the fields to change' adds genuine partial-update semantics that the schema alone does not convey (it cannot distinguish merge from replace). No field-level detail is added, which is fine given the schema documents all 12 parameters.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Fixes the text of a published press release') plus a hard scope qualifier ('within 24 hours of it going live'). That scope implicitly separates it from the draft-oriented siblings update_release and publish_release, but it never names them, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

It states a clear use window ('within 24 hours of it going live') and an explicit exclusion ('After 24 hours the text can't be changed'), which is real when-to-use guidance. It stops short of naming the alternative tool to use for drafts or post-24-hour edits, leaving the routing to inference.

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