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

The description adds context beyond annotations by specifying the immediate publish and clearing of pending schedule, which are behavioral traits not implied by the destructiveHint. However, it does not disclose additional side effects, reversibility, or prerequisites, so the added value is moderate.

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?

The description is a single, dense sentence that conveys the core action without extraneous information. It is well-structured, front-loaded, and earns every word.

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 destructive tool, the description covers the main effects (immediate publish and clearing schedule). However, terms like 'retained line revision' are not elaborated, and there is no mention of output or confirmation. Overall, it is adequate but not exhaustive.

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?

The input schema has no descriptions for lineKey or revision, and the description does not explicitly map these parameters. It only indirectly references a 'retained line revision,' which is insufficient given 0% schema description coverage.

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 clearly states the tool publishes a retained line revision immediately and clears any pending schedule. It uses a specific verb (publish) and resource (retained line revision), and the action of clearing the schedule distinguishes it from related scheduling tools.

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 description implies the tool is for immediate publishing of a previously retained revision, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like schedule_line_publish or publish_line_draft. No explicit guidance on exclusions or preferred scenarios is provided.

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