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

Beyond the destructiveHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses the real behavioral traits: optimistic-concurrency refusal if the draft changed, the side effect of moving the page to a pending address in the same step, automatic redirect creation for previously-public pages, and a partial-success warning when the entry-page template has no sections. It does not explain what a failed or partial publish leaves behind for a destructiveHint-true tool, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

The core action and the review-binding contract come first, followed by the pending-address and redirect cases, then the warning behavior — a sensible front-loaded ordering. It is dense rather than bloated, though the warning sentence is long and could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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 carries the return-value burden and does mention the warning field in the result, which is the one non-obvious output condition. What the result contains otherwise (published revision, final address) is left unstated, a minor gap for a mutation tool whose annotations already flag it as destructive.

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 the description adds genuine meaning the schema does not: expectedAddress is tied to draftSlug from get_entry and to a refusal-on-change contract, and expectedHeadAnchor is tied to latestRevision.headAnchor. That connects the parameters into a review-consistency workflow rather than restating field docs.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Publish a collection entry to make it live'), and the 'collection entry' framing cleanly separates it from publish_page and publish_partial in the sibling list. An agent knows what object it acts on and what the end state is 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?

It spells out preconditions for each optional parameter: pass expectedRevisionId/expectedHeadAnchor from get_entry to bind the publish to what was reviewed, pass draftSlug as expectedAddress when a pending address exists, and note that a first publish never needs a redirect. The refusal conditions act as explicit when/when-not guidance rather than leaving inference to the agent.

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