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

Annotations already carry destructiveHint, idempotentHint and readOnlyHint, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds real context beyond them: FREE/no credits, org admin requirement, and the important nuance that already-published patches are unaffected. This directly addresses the surprising part of a destructive-hinted mutating 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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary effect ('stops auto-publishing...') before the scope caveat and the cost/permission notes. No filler and every sentence carries distinct information.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers effect, scope, side effects on existing patches, cost, and the admin prerequisite. Nothing an agent needs to decide to call it correctly is missing.

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 both parameters and the issueType enum are already documented in the schema. The phrase 'for this issue type' reinforces the scoping of issueType but adds no syntax or selection guidance beyond the enum, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('stops auto-publishing freshly AI-drafted patches for this issue type') and defines scope precisely as per-issue-type. Named context (publish_patch, drafted patches) makes it distinguishable from the sibling enable_patch_auto_publish even though that sibling isn't named explicitly.

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?

Clearly establishes the when: this affects future auto-drafts and routes them back to manual publish_patch calls, and clarifies already-published patches are untouched. It never states the inverse action ('use enable_patch_auto_publish to restore'), so the alternative is only implied rather than explicit.

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