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

Annotations already flag destructive=true and idempotent=false, and the description adds real context beyond them: the publish emails subscribers and posts to Slack, i.e. irreversible external side effects, plus the user-consent gate. It stops short of saying what happens to the draft afterwards or that repeat calls create duplicate notifications.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the side effects, then the precondition. No filler and nothing that duplicates structured fields verbatim.

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, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers action, blast radius, and consent gating — enough to call it safely. Missing only post-call state (what the response returns, whether the draft is consumed) which an agent would want given no output schema.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load — and it does for the three optional params, explaining they 'replace the draft text' and giving the impact enum (minor, major, critical) that the schema lacks entirely. slug and proposal_id remain undescribed, which is the only real gap.

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 pending review draft as a status incident') and makes the transformation explicit — a draft becomes a live incident. This clearly separates it from dismiss_incident_proposal and list_incident_proposals without needing 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?

Gives an explicit gating condition: 'Run only when the user asked to publish it in this conversation,' which is exactly the kind of confirmation constraint an agent needs before a destructive publish. It does not explicitly name dismiss_incident_proposal as the alternative path, keeping it just short of a 5.

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