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

Annotations only declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world mutation, so the description carries the interesting burden and delivers: idempotency guarantees, snapshot-vs-draft republish semantics, and the warning emitted for content-blocks-without-questions. It stops short of stating permission requirements or what the call actually returns.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, then edge cases and the next step follow in compact clauses with minimal waste. The dash-separated enumeration of idempotency rules is dense but each clause conveys a distinct behavior an agent needs, so little could be cut without losing signal.

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 single-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the failure path, the idempotency contract, and the intended follow-up call. It omits anything about required auth or the shape of the success response, which is a minor residual gap given the tool's simplicity.

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% for the single required formId parameter, so nothing documents its format or provenance. The description implies a form is targeted but never says how to obtain a formId (e.g. from form_list or form_create), leaving a small gap that the self-explanatory name only partly covers.

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 in the first clause ('Publish a form to make it live'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like form_unpublish, form_create, and form_update. It also names the follow-up tool (formShareLink_create) and the prerequisite editors, so the agent can place it in the workflow without reading other schemas.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use and when-it-fails conditions: drafts publish from current content, republishing pulls the last snapshot, and forms with no editor content cannot be published until editor_insertHeader or editor_insertTextQuestion is called. It also routes the agent forward to formShareLink_create, covering both prerequisites and next steps.

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