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

The staging model is genuine behavioral context the annotations do not convey, and the omit-to-leave-unchanged note describes state behavior. However, the annotations declare destructiveHint=true and the description never explains what publishing destroys or overwrites (the current live site), nor any auth requirements or failure behavior, which is the most important disclosure for a destructive tool.

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, front-loaded with the action and its effect on the live site, and none is wasted. The parameter note is placed last where an agent needs it.

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 publish toggle with no output schema, the description covers purpose, staging semantics, and the optional flag's default behavior. The main remaining gap is the destructive consequence of publishing, which matters given destructiveHint=true.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds semantics the schema lacks: that omitting `static` leaves the current setting unchanged, and that the flag toggles static delivery on/off. It does not describe `id`, though the schema already covers it adequately.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Publish the draft so it goes live') and distinguishes this tool from the many write siblings by explaining that 'every write is staged until this runs', which tells the agent that update_site/patch_site_bulk do not go live on their own. It never names the counterpart unpublish_site, so the sibling mapping is implied rather than explicit.

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?

'Every write is staged until this runs' is real usage guidance: it tells the agent this is the step required to make prior edits visible, and that omitting it leaves the site in draft. There is no explicit when-not-to-use clause (e.g. previewing) or reference to unpublish_site, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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