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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: it requires write scope, it fails if there is no draft or the template is archived, and it publishes immediately. The annotations already indicate it's not read-only, not idempotent, and not destructive, but the description adds context about the draft/live version mechanism and failure conditions.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core action, followed by the endpoint, scope requirement, and failure conditions. Every sentence earns its place with no waste.

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 tool with a clear schema and annotations, the description is quite complete. It covers the action, the endpoint, the scope requirement, and failure conditions. It doesn't describe the return value, but there's no output schema and the tool is simple enough that this is a minor gap.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter (templateId) with a clear description. The description doesn't add much beyond the schema, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action (publish a template's current draft as its new live version), the resource (template), and the endpoint (POST /templates/{id}/publish). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like update_template_draft and archive_template by focusing on the publish action.

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 description provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you want to publish a template's draft as the live version. It also mentions failure conditions (no draft or archived template), which helps the agent decide when not to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for those cases.

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