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

Beyond annotations (idempotentHint, readOnlyHint), the description discloses important behaviors: immutability of the source version, remapping of preserved thread anchors, the concurrency check to prevent overwriting, and the return counts (carried, outdated, failed). This adds substantial behavioral context.

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?

Three sentences, each informative: purpose, concurrency constraint, and return value. No filler or redundancy. The most important information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description still summarizes the return type (new version plus counts). It covers key operational aspects: immutability, ownership, concurrency safety, and remapping. The tool is complex, but the description, combined with schema and annotations, provides a complete picture.

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 input schema already has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions. The description adds extra meaning for expectedLatestVersionId by explaining the concurrency rule (must match current latest or null for first version), which goes beyond the schema's 'Current latest version ID' phrasing. This justifies a score above the baseline of 3.

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 uses a specific verb ('publish') and resource ('immutable source version to an artifact owned by this principal'), clearly stating what the tool does. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like create_document or get_document by focusing on publishing a version and remapping thread anchors.

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 description provides clear context for use: it is for publishing a new version, with a concurrency guard via expectedLatestVersionId. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is unambiguous given sibling tools.

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