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

Annotations cover the safety profile (destructive=true, readOnlyHint=false), and the description adds substantially more: instant unmoderated public exposure, preview caching on first open, the full reason list with per-reason remediation, and ORG_QUOTA with resetsAt plus an explicit 'wait, do not retry' instruction. There is a mild tension between the declared idempotentHint=false and 'repeating is safe / UNCHANGED (nothing written)', but that describes the post-first-call behavior rather than a real contradiction.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the key warning before any caveats, and the bolded cues make it scannable. It is long, but nearly every clause (per-reason remediation, the 'relay the message word for word' instruction, the 'never build the URL' rule) is directly actionable, so little is wasted.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description documents the return contract (outcome PUBLISHED/UNCHANGED, url, revision), explains how to consume it (hand out url, never construct it), and names the follow-up tool (get_sandbox_share). Nothing an agent needs to call this 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 the baseline is 3, but the description earns above it by explaining why archiveId must be in a specific state and version, tying the parameter to the check pipeline rather than merely naming it.

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 precise verb+resource+effect: publishes an archive to the game's sandbox and makes it publicly playable at once. The first sentence alone lets an agent distinguish it from sibling writes like start_archive_upload or confirm_archive_upload.

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 preconditions (get_archive_status state=PASSED, processing=DONE, Bridge >= 2.2.0), an alternative pre-check (get_sandbox_state with the same archiveId answers the refusal before this call), and a full refusal taxonomy that tells the agent exactly when the call will not succeed and what to do instead.

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