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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond them: the page transitions to PUBLISH, Redis and nginx caches are cleared so the change is immediately live, and the operation is scoped to the caller's merchant. It stops short of saying what happens on a page that is already published, or whether the action can be undone.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the state change and cache side effect. No filler, and the identifier syntax is embedded inline rather than in a separate paragraph.

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, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what changes, what gets invalidated, and the permission scope. The remaining gap is edge-case behavior — already-published pages, invalid or missing identifiers, and whether anything is returned — which an agent would need to call confidently.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the schema alone leaves both parameters bare. The description recovers the key semantic — '`page_id` or `page_uuid`' — implying either identifier is acceptable, which is more than the nullable integer/string fields convey. It still does not say that at least one identifier is required (schema marks 0 required), nor which form is preferred when both are supplied.

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?

Specific verb plus resource: 'Publish a seliee_page' and the effect (status set to PUBLISH). It also names the concrete side effects and the merchant scoping, which separates it from siblings like clear_page_cache (cache-only) and edit_page (content mutation). The only blemish is the odd token 'seliee_page', but the intent is unambiguous.

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?

Implicitly says when to use it — when you want the live site to serve the page at once — but never names alternatives such as clear_page_cache (refresh cache without changing state) or edit_page, and gives no when-not guidance. An agent can infer usage, but routing between publish_page and the cache-flush siblings is left to guesswork.

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