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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the mutation risk is covered; the description adds the useful outcome that the splitter becomes live for the source inbox/project uploads. However, it never explains the destructive implication the annotation hints at — whether publishing replaces an already-active splitter — nor permission or concurrency behavior.

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?

Two short sentences with the action verb front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though the brevity comes at the cost of the context a destructive publish tool needs.

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 destructive, non-read-only publish operation with a required revision guard, the description omits key agent-relevant facts: what happens to a currently active splitter, how a revision mismatch is handled, and the project_slug scoping caveat that the schema notes. The existence of an output schema excuses omitting return values, but not these gaps.

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 only 33% (project_slug is documented in the schema; splitter_id and expected_draft_revision are not), and the description adds nothing about any of the three. Most critically, expected_draft_revision is a required optimistic-concurrency token whose meaning and failure mode are left entirely unexplained.

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+resource (publish a splitter draft) and clarifies the resulting state change: the logical splitter becomes active for its source inbox or project uploads. This distinguishes it reasonably from siblings like splitters.create_logical, splitters.update_logical, and splitters.archive, though it never names an alternative directly.

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 implies a lifecycle position (draft → active) but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (a draft must exist and its revision must be known), and no when-not guidance relative to splitters.update_logical or splitters.archive. An agent must infer the workflow entirely.

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