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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the mutation profile is covered. The description adds the concrete state transition ('set status to live'), which is useful context, but it does not explain why the operation is flagged destructive, whether it is reversible, or what permissions beyond a session token are needed.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the action front-loaded and the clarification parenthesized. It is tight, though it leans toward under-specification rather than optimizing for reader value.

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 two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it conveys the state change but omits error conditions, authorization expectations, and side effects that an agent would want before calling it.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema (including the session_token's provenance). The description adds no further parameter meaning, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 tournament) and disambiguates by defining what publishing means (set status to live), which differentiates it from siblings like create_tournament or update_fixture. It does not explicitly name a contrasting sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

The phrase 'so the display works' implies the motivating condition for using it, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives among the many sibling tools. Usage is only weakly inferable.

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