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

Only a title annotation exists, so the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses version semantics (new version, same slug/URL), the metadata-only mode, and the not-found failure. It stops short of saying what is returned (new version identifier, URL) or whether the new version goes live immediately.

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, zero filler, and the primary action is front-loaded before the conditional mode and the sibling alternative. The parenthetical parameter list is compact and functional rather than padding.

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 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the mutation model, failure mode, and look-alike tool well. It leaves return shape and post-publish visibility unspecified, which matters for a tool whose output is a shareable link, but nothing needed 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 baseline is 3; the description earns a bump by describing cross-parameter behavior the schema cannot — the content/content_base64 presence toggling between 'new version' and 'details only' mode, and the grouping of metadata fields (title, project, summary, prompt, share) that survive that toggle.

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 a new version of an artifact') and the key invariant (slug and URL preserved), which is exactly what distinguishes it from publish_artifact. An agent can tell it apart from its siblings without opening any 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?

Gives explicit routing: omit content/content_base64 to only change metadata (with the concrete use case of moving an artifact between projects), and 'use publish_artifact for new work' for the alternative. It also names the failure condition (no artifact with that slug), so the agent knows when not to call it.

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