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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's job is to add context, which it does: it discloses the public-facing consequence ('visitors see it from then on') and the rollback semantics of publishing an older version. It stops short of naming permission requirements or the effect on a previously live version, which keeps it below a 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 doing distinct work: the effect, the rollback case, and the return value. The consequence is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 five-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential unknowns: that the change is immediately public, that it can be used to roll back, and what the response contains ('the site with its live version id'). Missing only secondary details such as permission requirements and the meaning of dry_run.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does add meaning to versionId by explaining that publishing an earlier version constitutes a rollback, but it says nothing about dry_run, person, or project, leaving the schema to carry those entirely.

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 specific verb and resource — making a version the live website — and clarifies that visitors see it immediately, which separates it from the read-only connections_site and from unrelated publish siblings like connections_event_publish. The phrasing 'Make a version the live website at its address' is slightly garbled but the intent is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'Publishing an earlier version rolls back' tells the agent this tool doubles as a rollback mechanism, which is a useful selection cue. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of when not to publish (e.g. preview via dry_run).

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