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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the mutation risk is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: it changes the schema registry and can change what clients see, and it lists the returned result code, success flag, message, and published schema hash. It does not, however, mention permission/auth requirements, which would be valuable for a destructive registry write.

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?

Five tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and alternative first, then behavioral consequences, then prerequisite, then parameters. Every sentence carries distinct information with no restatement of the tool name or annotations.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be detailed, yet the description briefly summarizes them anyway. Combined with the sibling differentiation, destructive side-effect disclosure, prerequisite check, and per-parameter meaning, an agent has everything needed to invoke this correctly.

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 0% and there are 5 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it names graphId, variant, and schemaDocument (as SDL), and explains that branch and commit are optional labels for the publication. This adds real meaning over the bare anyOf string types, though it could be more precise about accepted ID/format shapes.

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?

Starts with a specific verb+resource ('Publish a schema to a graph variant') and immediately ties it to the equivalent CLI command. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the closest sibling by naming PublishSubgraph and the monograph-vs-federated condition, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

States when to use this tool (monograph) versus the named alternative (PublishSubgraph for one subgraph of a federated graph), and adds a prerequisite workflow: run RunSchemaCheck first to see the effect on client operations. Both the selection condition and the ordering guidance are explicit.

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