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

Adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: owner token requirement, optimistic-version mismatch behavior, stale-version application, preservation of OLD links and forced subdomain modes, delivery notice in the result, and the fact that content updates never change hosting. These are non-obvious operational details for a mutation tool.

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 dense but front-loaded: purpose first, then prerequisites, version handling, and side effects. Every clause adds relevant behavioral or scoping information without filler.

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?

Given the mutation risk, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description supplies the missing operational context: exclusions, token requirement, concurrency behavior, and side effects. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly and interpret the non-rejection behavior.

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%, so parameter details are largely already documented. The description still adds meaning by calling out owner-token requirement and explaining expectedVersion mismatch behavior as reported rather than rejected, which goes beyond the schema's basic stale-value note.

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 action and target: changing delivery mode for a new publication. It also distinguishes the tool from sibling contexts by explicitly excluding sites and non-public HTML-format pages, so an agent can tell when this tool is meant to apply.

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 clear usage boundaries: only for a NEW publication, not a site, and not a non-public HTML-format page. It also states the owner-token requirement and optional expectedVersion, but it does not name the alternative sibling tools for the excluded cases.

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