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

The annotations already mark this as destructive and open-world, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond them: it refuses non-newest revisions and refuses when the draft changed since it was read, preventing accidental publication of stale content. That is valuable concurrency-safety disclosure.

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 description is front-loaded with the action and effect, followed by the required revision provenance and the refusal behavior. It is dense but every sentence contributes to correct invocation.

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 destructive publish operation with no output schema, the description covers the key preconditions, expected parameter sources, and failure modes. It does not describe the exact post-publish response, but the absence of an output schema makes that less critical.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds useful semantics by mapping revisionId to latestRevision.id, expectedRevisionId to the head revision the user reviewed, and expectedHeadAnchor to a value read from get_partial_content or a save result. This goes beyond the schema’s short field descriptions.

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 the specific verb "publish" with the resource "partial (header, footer, or reusable section)" and states the effect: making it live across all pages. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like publish_page and publish_entry by resource type.

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 gives concrete usage instructions: revisionId must be the reviewed draft, expectedRevisionId should match latestRevision.id, and expectedHeadAnchor comes from get_partial_content or a save result. It also states the refusal conditions, though it does not explicitly compare against publish_page or other alternatives.

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