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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a real behavior beyond the name: a cache flush side effect and the fact that pending changes become publicly visible. It still omits permissions/authorization needs, failure behavior, and whether previously live state is recoverable.

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 tight sentences with the primary effect front-loaded and the cache side effect immediately after; nothing is wasted. Slightly more structure (e.g. a pointer to the sibling for dry-run or website-scoped publishing) would have improved it without length cost.

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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition covers the essential semantics: what becomes live and that caching is invalidated. The remaining gap is routing relative to the many publish/set_live siblings, which is the main thing an agent could still get wrong.

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 100% and the single nested object already documents externalId and propertyId, including that ExternalId can substitute for propertyId. The description adds no additional meaning about which identifier to prefer or how partial data is merged, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Publish a property') and states the resulting state ('all the changes live on the website'), which separates it from property_add and property_delete. It does not, however, distinguish it from close siblings such as property_try_add or website_property_publish, so the agent cannot be fully certain this is the right publish call.

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?

Usage is only implied by the outcome ('making all the changes live'), with no explicit statement of when to choose this over property_try_add, website_property_publish, or property_add. No prerequisites are given (e.g. whether the property and its edits must already exist).

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