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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses the key effect ('Makes the article active with a publication timestamp, immediately public') and permission model ('owned by this active Coach-Token's original author'), but omits whether publication is reversible, what errors occur on unauthorized attempts, and how to correct wording afterward. These are significant gaps for a mutation tool with no annotation coverage.

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?

Four front-loaded sentences with no filler. The ownership requirement, prerequisite read, publication effect, and final warning are ordered logically. Slight redundancy between 'Read online_article_get first' and 'Confirm final wording before calling' keeps it from being maximally tight.

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 no-annotation, no-output-schema publish mutation, the description covers the essential invocation path: ownership requirement, prior read, revision source, and public effect. It remains incomplete on post-publication behavior, reversibility, and failure modes, which an agent might need for safe invocation.

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%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It usefully clarifies that token must belong to the active Coach-Token's original author, that article_id must refer to an existing owned material, and that revision must be the current revision from online_article_get. However, it does not explain revision format, token acquisition, or article_id scope beyond ownership, leaving gaps for all three undocumented parameters.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Publish an existing material') and immediately distinguishes the action from sibling reads by directing the agent to online_article_get first. It also clarifies the scope ('existing material') versus creating a new article, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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?

It gives explicit prerequisites ('Read online_article_get first and supply its current revision'), a clear when-not condition ('foreign correction grants and staff credentials never authorize publication'), and a procedural warning ('Confirm final wording before calling'). An agent knows exactly when and how to invoke it relative to other article tools.

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