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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false), the description discloses the cost model (FREE, no credits), the auth requirement (org admin), the blast radius (public manifest consumed by visitor browsers), and a key reassurance that the audited origin is never modified. This is exactly the kind of mutation context an agent needs before calling a write 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?

The effect of the tool is front-loaded, and the sentences carry real information (mechanism, safety, cost, auth). The parenthetical about redirects and an operator-deployed Worker is a slight digression but still earns its place by clarifying where published content is read from.

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 and safe-leaning annotations, the description covers effect, visibility scope, cost, and permissions. It does not state what the call returns or how to undo it, which would matter somewhat given the absence of an output schema, but the essential decision inputs are present.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema with their provenance (patchId from list_patches or draft_patch, projectId from list_projects). The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific state transition on a specific resource: a drafted fix becomes live and appears in the project's public manifest. It goes further than the name by explaining the delivery mechanism (embedded snippet / operator-deployed Worker reading from the visitor's browser) and clarifying that the site's origin content is untouched, which distinguishes it from any tool that edits the site itself.

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?

It gives a clear precondition ('makes a drafted fix live', i.e. a draft must already exist, and 'Requires an org admin'), which tells the agent when this call is valid. It stops short of naming the siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer that draft_patch or batch_draft_patches must run first and that revert_patch undoes this.

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