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

Adds real context beyond annotations: the publish is conditionally refused when a newer draft exists or the draft was edited, and the rationale (user re-reviews) is given. It does not describe what happens to the previously published version or what auth level is needed, which the destructiveHint annotation leaves implicit.

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, front-loaded with the action, then the parameter contract, then the failure behavior. No filler and nothing repeated from the 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?

For a 5-parameter mutating tool with no output schema, the concurrency contract is fully covered, which is the main correctness risk. Missing only the success-side outcome (page goes live, prior published revision superseded) and any permission notes.

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, but the description adds actionable semantics the schema does not: pass the same latestRevision.id as both revisionId and expectedRevisionId, and name the tools that supply headAnchor. That cross-parameter relationship is genuinely additive.

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 and resource (publish a page) and immediately defines the outcome (make it live). An agent can distinguish it from publish_entry, publish_partial, and unpublish_page without opening a 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?

Explains the precondition clearly: revisionId must be the draft the user reviewed, sourced from get_page, get_page_content, or a save result. It does not state when to prefer publish_page over reverting or updating a revision first, but the review-then-publish workflow is explicit enough to guide invocation.

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