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

Goes well past the annotations, which only say idempotent, non-destructive, non-read-only. The description discloses which assets get rebuilt (public copy, subtitle track, chapter count, poster, playback ladder), what is preserved (URL and publication date), the `write` permission requirement, the `$0` cost, and the two return outcomes including the idempotent `already_exhibited` path.

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-loads the core action and effect, then layers the trigger signal, the rebuild scope, and the return shape. The dense em-dash construction is efficient, though the first sentence is long enough that the trigger condition could have been broken out for faster scanning.

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?

With no output schema, the description still explains the return payload (`outcome` and the exhibited run) and enumerates its values. Combined with the permission note, cost, idempotency behavior, and what is and isn't preserved, an agent has everything needed to decide and call correctly.

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 50%: `run_id` is described in the schema, `project_id` is not described anywhere. The description clarifies that the run must be a delivered final and defaulting behavior, but says nothing that disambiguates `project_id` beyond embedding it in 'the project's published gallery work'. Adequate given the schema does half the work, but it leaves a required parameter thin.

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 — repoint the published gallery exhibit at a newer final — and pins the scope with 'under the SAME public URL'. The parenthetical about `publication.gallery.exhibitsLatestFinal: false` makes it unmistakable against any sibling tool in the set.

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 the exact trigger condition: a piece re-rendered after publication, evidenced by `exhibitsLatestFinal: false` in the project status. It does not name an explicit alternative or when-not-to-use case, but no sibling appears to compete for this operation, so the context is sufficient.

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