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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds real context: it changes the schema registry and 'can change what the router serves', plus it enumerates what the response contains (created vs updated, composition errors, launch). It does not cover permission/auth requirements or failure modes for invalid variants, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and blast radius, and most sentences earn their place. The later enumeration ('Provide the graph ID, the variant name...') mildly restates required fields already implied, making it slightly verbose though still readable.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, yet the description summarizes them anyway. Combined with the prerequisite routing, the side-effect warning, and full parameter coverage for a 0%-documented schema, an agent has everything needed to call it 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%, so the description must carry the full burden, and it does: it accounts for all 8 parameters including graphId, variant, subgraphName, sdl ('as SDL'), url, revision, branch, and commit. It even adds conditional meaning to url that the bare schema cannot express.

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 a subgraph schema to a variant and start composition') and anchors it to a known equivalent ('the same write that rover subgraph publish performs'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like PublishGraphSchema, PublishContract, and RunSubgraphCheck.

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 names the prerequisite alternative ('Run RunSubgraphCheck first to see the effect on client operations') and gives the condition for supplying the optional url ('when you add a subgraph or move its endpoint'). Both when-to-use and parameter-conditional guidance are present.

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