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

Goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint/idempotentHint/openWorld) by disclosing that the live URL does not resolve until this runs, that the action is reversible via undo with what: 'last_publish', and that a billing_gate result must be surfaced verbatim rather than worked around by unpublishing another site.

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 core action and scope rules, then the consent gate, then error handling. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the 'with page_slug it publishes one page; with item, one collection item' sentence partly restates what the schema already documents.

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, it covers the side effect (live URL), reversibility, the consent precondition, the error path, and what the returned url guarantees. An agent has everything needed to invoke it safely.

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 75%, and the description reinforces the crucial default semantics — omitting page_slug or item promotes the whole draft, and passing them narrows scope to a single page or collection item. It adds intent-level meaning (page_slug requires an already-live site) but leaves locale unaddressed beyond the schema.

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 ('Make the draft live') and then enumerates the three scope modes: whole draft, one page via page_slug, one item via item. This lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like add_page, add_content_item and unpublish without reading any 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?

Explicit when-to-use gate: only after the owner's explicit yes following a preview, with an explicit prohibition on auto-publishing and on inferring publish intent from 'change X'. It also names the correct alternative flow (add_content_item writes the draft, this takes it live).

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