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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds essential context the annotations cannot: add/replace vs remove semantics and that unspecified operations are preserved, plus return info (new revision, total count, or no-change). It does not explain what 'allowOverwrittenOperations' controls, which is a notable behavioral gap for a mutation 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?

Four dense sentences that are front-loaded with the action and then progressively add semantics, returns, and workflow routing. Every sentence earns its place, though the sentence listing required IDs is slightly redundant with the math of required parameters.

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?

Covers the operation's purpose, its non-obvious merge semantics, the return contract, the prerequisite discovery step, and the required identifiers. With the output schema present, the description does not need to detail return values further, and it remains complete for an agent to call this destructive mutation 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does explain the roles of 'operations' and 'remove' and what happens when they are omitted. However, the most semantically risky parameter for this mutation, 'allowOverwrittenOperations', is never mentioned, and 'graphId'/'listId' only appear as a generic instruction to provide them.

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 ('Publish operations to a persisted query list') and further anchors it by equating it to the known CLI command 'rover persisted-queries publish'. It even explains what a persisted query list is, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like PublishGraphSchema, PublishSubgraph, PublishReadme, and PublishContract.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it, includes the workflow prerequisite ('Use GetPersistedQueryListStatus to find the list ID and its current revision'), names the sibling that supplies required inputs, and clarifies the non-destructive semantics of omission ('Operations you do not mention stay in the list unchanged').

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