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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=true, idempotent=true), the description discloses consent requirements, OAuth publishing access, ownership restriction, prohibitions on publishing credentials/private context, the unverified self-described nature, and the fact that publishing does not execute the agent. This is substantial behavioral context that annotations alone do not convey.

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 description is appropriately front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds info: content guidance, auth/consent, restrictions, safety, verification status, non-execution. It is slightly dense with several clauses, but each earns its place and no filler is present.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, most parameter semantics, auth, ownership, and security. The gaps are minor: contact is undefined and the description does not explicitly state that re-publishing overwrites the previous public description, though destructiveHint and 'update' imply it. Overall it is nearly complete for safe invocation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains slug (by slug), id (optional, enables renaming), content (free-text with capabilities/limitations/etc.), and publish (must be true for consent). Contact is the one required parameter left unexplained, so the coverage is strong but not complete.

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 opening phrase 'Publish or update an AI agent's public description by slug' names a specific action and resource, and the closing sentence 'This publishes a description; it does not run the agent' prevents confusion with agent execution tools. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like get_agent/search_agents, which read/query, and upsert_profile/upsert_project, which target other resource types.

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?

The description gives clear context: when to use it (publishing/updating an agent description), prerequisites (OAuth, explicit consent via publish=true), and a constraint (only own publications). It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say 'use search_agents to find agents' or 'use get_agent to read', so it falls short of the full 5.

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