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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond the annotations: the publishing agent must manually author the four changeNarrative sections. It does not explain what happens to the current version, whether a new version is appended vs. replacing history, or any version-conflict behavior.

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?

Two tight sentences with the action front-loaded and the authoring obligation second. 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?

For a destructive, nested-object mutation with no output schema, the definition covers the narrative requirement and the annotations cover safety, but it omits workflow context (how to obtain restoreVersion or the current expectedProjectVersion) and the consequence of republishing on existing versions.

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 67%, so most parameters already carry descriptions. The description adds real meaning for changeNarrative (four manual plain-language sections), but says nothing about restoreVersion or expectedProjectVersion beyond what the schema provides. 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-and-resource: republish a retained prior graph version as the next version. This clearly separates it from list_project_versions and publish_project_graph, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternative tools (list_project_versions to find a version, get_project_status to fetch the current version). The agent must infer the workflow entirely.

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