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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond the annotations by specifying that the page returns at its existing URL, but it does not elaborate on potential side effects such as cache invalidation, authorization requirements, or behavior when the page is already published. Given the annotations, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning: 'unpublished,' 'back online,' and 'existing URL' all carry operational significance. It is as concise as possible while remaining complete.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential state transition and URL preservation. Annotations handle idempotence and non-destructiveness. The description does not mention edge cases such as an invalid pageId or a page that is already online, but the low complexity and annotations make this sufficient for confident invocation.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and pageId is the only parameter, so the description must compensate for missing parameter details. The description references 'an unpublished page,' which implies pageId identifies the page to republish and that the page must currently be unpublished. It does not explain how to obtain pageId or any constraints beyond the schema's minLength, adding only marginal semantics.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('bring back online') and resource ('page'), and adds the key scope 'at its existing URL.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings such as unpublish_page, publish_html, and publish_presentation, since those target different actions or formats. The title and description together leave no ambiguity about what republishing a page means.

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 phrase 'Bring an unpublished page back online' gives a clear condition for when to use this tool: exactly when a page is currently unpublished and should be live again. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended use case is evident and contrasts naturally with unpublish_page.

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