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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this replaces live content and is repeat-safe. The description usefully adds the staging/commit model, but it doesn't warn that publishing overwrites the currently live site or note any authorization requirement, so it adds only moderate context beyond the annotations.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the staging constraint immediately after. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Covers the essential mechanics (commit point, optional static toggle) and there is no output schema to explain. However, for a destructive publish operation with no required parameters, it omits what happens to the existing live version and whether the id parameter is mandatory to target a site, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 baseline is 3, and the description genuinely adds meaning: it explains the omit-to-leave-unchanged semantics for `static` ('omit to leave it'), which the schema does not state. The framing of `static` as delivery on/off also clarifies the renderer switch beyond the schema's terse wording.

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 clear verb+resource with scope: 'Publish the draft so it goes live.' The added note that 'Every write is staged until this runs' clarifies this is the commit point and implicitly distinguishes it from siblings like unpublish_site or update_page, though no sibling is named.

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?

Explains the context in which this tool is required: staged writes only take effect once publish runs. That tells the agent when to invoke it, but it never names unpublish_site or any alternative, so exclusions are left to inference.

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