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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint and openWorldHint, but the description goes further: it discloses what the response contains (created vs updated, composition errors, the launch that started) and the downstream blast radius ('changes the schema registry and can change what the router serves'). That live-traffic consequence is not derivable from any structured field.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and equivalent CLI command, then consequences, then prerequisites, then parameter instructions. No filler; each sentence either scopes the operation, warns about impact, or supplies parameter meaning that the schema lacks.

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 an 8-parameter destructive mutation with a 0%-described schema, this covers the prerequisite check, the side effects, the returned artifacts, and all inputs. An output schema exists, so the brief return summary is sufficient rather than required.

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 carries the full burden and does: it names the four required inputs and their meaning (graph ID, variant, subgraph name, schema as SDL), gives a conditional rule for url, and explains revision/branch/commit as optional metadata. Every one of the eight parameters is accounted for.

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) plus the immediate consequence (start composition), and anchors it to a known equivalent, `rover subgraph publish`. The word 'subgraph' cleanly separates it from the sibling PublishGraphSchema 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 routes the agent to a prerequisite sibling: 'Run RunSubgraphCheck first to see the effect on client operations.' It also gives conditional guidance for the optional url (only when adding a subgraph or moving its endpoint). It does not state when to prefer PublishGraphSchema/PublishContract over this, leaving that inference to the agent.

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