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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true), the description discloses that unapproved results stay private, that publishing is an outward act, and that republishing repoints the profile to a newer Card. These are meaningful behavioral traits not captured by annotations.

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 adds the key constraints and behaviors. Reasonably tight, though it packs several clauses into the flow.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and open-world behavior, the description covers what happens to approved vs unapproved results and the republish semantics. Return-value info is absent but the tool has no output 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description adds meaning by explaining card_id must be a Card the pair stored that tells the profile story (free_story fits), going beyond the schema's terse 'your pair's own visible content card'.

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?

State a specific verb ('Publishes') plus resource ('your pair's profile') and further specifies that it links a stored Card to the latest APPROVED result per source. This is clear and distinguishable from siblings like profile_questions/respond, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool.

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?

It implies the when: publishing happens after human approval and points at a Card the pair stored ('free_story fits'). It clarifies approval is the human's step and publishing is a separate outward act, but it offers no explicit when-not conditions or routing to a sibling tool.

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