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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the effect semantics ('Active calls keep their original snapshot'), which is real information beyond the name, but omits permission requirements, idempotency/retry behavior, and what happens if revision is stale.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the side-effect scoping second. Nothing to trim.

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 state-mutating publish operation with no annotations, no output schema, and three undocumented required parameters, the description leaves major gaps: what 'validated' requires, what the operation changes on the agent, and the consequences of a revision mismatch.

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 0% and the description never mentions id, revision, or workspaceId. The revision parameter in particular looks like an optimistic-concurrency guard, but the description adds no meaning about what value it must match or what happens on mismatch.

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 validated draft') and scopes the effect ('for new calls'), which lets an agent distinguish it from agents_save or agents_rollback without opening the schema. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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?

The phrase 'a validated draft' implies the prerequisite ordering (draft must exist and pass validation, i.e. agents_test/agents_save before agents_publish), but no alternative tool is named and no when-not-to-use condition is given. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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