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

The description discloses the exact return shape { templateId, publishedVersion, publishedVersionId, latestVersion, publishedAt }, which is critical given no output schema. It also specifies the required auth scope (templates:write) and the fallback behavior without a key. This adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations (which only provide hints without details). No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 four sentences, each earning its place: core purpose, no-version case, with-version case with sibling contrast, and identifier/return/auth details. No redundancy or fluff. Information is front-loaded and logically organized.

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?

Given the moderate complexity (two parameters, conditional behavior, no output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, usage modes, return format, auth requirements, and differentiation from siblings. The annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) are consistent, and the description fills any gaps left by the schema and annotations.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds significant value by explaining the conditional semantics: omitting version triggers a draft snapshot, while supplying an existing version republishes it and leaves the draft untouched. It also clarifies that templateId accepts a UUID or slug, consistent with other routes. This goes well beyond the baseline of 3.

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 verb 'Make a template version live for rendering' and the resource 'template version'. It explains two distinct modes—snapshotting the current draft or republishing an existing version—and explicitly contrasts with the sibling tool rollback_template, which handles reverting bad releases with concurrency and draft restoration.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance for both parameter variants: omit version to ship an edit made with update_template, or supply an existing version to republish a known-good snapshot. It also gives a clear when-not-to-use directive: 'Reach for rollback_template instead when you are reverting a bad release', explaining why that tool is the correct alternative.

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