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

Annotations only say this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world mutation. The description adds what the annotations cannot: idempotency, the destructive side effect (empty draft removes the language from publishedLanguages and respondents lose it in the picker), the exact return shape, and the meaning of alreadyCurrent so callers can suppress false 'publish OK' UX.

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?

Every sentence is load-bearing: purpose, idempotency, destructive edge case, return contract, and call ordering, with the core action front-loaded. No filler or restatement of the title.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by documenting the returned `{ publishedKeyCount, alreadyCurrent }` object and its interpretation. The only remaining gap is that neither parameter's meaning is fully spelled out for a zero-coverage schema.

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 both parameters, so the description must carry the load. It implicitly defines `language` as the draft language being published and ties an empty value to unpublish behavior, but `formId` is never mentioned and no format expectations are stated beyond what the regex already encodes.

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 first sentence gives a precise verb and resource — 'Snapshot a language's draft into the public bundle' — which is clearly distinguishable from translationDraft_update (edit the draft) and form_publish (publish the whole form). The scope (one language, within a form) is stated, not implied.

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?

'Call after translationDraft_update once the author has reviewed' gives an explicit sequencing rule, and 'No separate unpublish tool — clear the draft and republish' tells the agent how to reach the inverse operation. It stops short of contrasting with the sibling form_publish, so an agent could still wonder which publish applies.

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