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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, non-idempotent and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two behavioral facts not in structured data: an admin authorization requirement and that the operation 'waits for the owner's approval', implying an asynchronous/approval-gated outcome. It does not say what members see if publishing fails or is pending, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information: the action, the permission gate, and the approval caveat. The primary action is front-loaded and nothing is redundant.

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 toggle with no output schema, the description covers action, authorization, and an approval gate, which is enough to call it correctly. It leaves the approval flow ambiguous (whose approval, what the caller sees while pending), which is a modest gap rather than a blocking one.

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 all three parameters are documented in-schema, including that published=true publishes and false reverts. The description restates that same semantic but adds no format, constraint, or precedence detail beyond the schema, 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 draft course') and states it is bidirectional ('or turn it back into a draft'), so the agent immediately understands this is a state toggle rather than a creation or listing tool. It is clearly distinguishable from create_course and list_courses in the sibling 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?

Says when to use it in both directions (publish a draft / revert to draft) and adds the gate 'Admins only', which is real usage context. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative or stating when not to use it, so it falls just below the top bar.

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