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

Annotations already declare destructive/openWorld/not-idempotent, but the description adds real behavioral context: the scope requirement, the two publish paths (direct vs per-publish review with a human approval step), and the approval link's constraints (single-use, form-bound, 15-minute expiry). This is well beyond what structured fields provide.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then layered preconditions and edge cases. The approval-flow sentence is dense but each clause carries distinct, useful information; nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. For a destructive publish operation, the description covers scope requirements, the human-approval branch, link constraints, and the no-op edge case—everything an agent needs to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents both form and allowBreaking, including when allowBreaking applies. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource: take a form's staged changes (or draft) live. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like fillo_unpublish_form, fillo_push_form, and fillo_discard_changes without opening their 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?

Explains the preconditions well: it requires the forms:publish scope with direct-publish policy, and connections using per-publish review instead get an approval URL. It also notes the no-op case (already-live forms with nothing staged return success unchanged). It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the context is clear.

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