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

The description discloses important behavioral traits: it makes the draft live, returns specific URLs, and explains how to use them on different platforms. It also mentions the pinned history behavior with '?v=N'. The annotation openWorldHint=false is minimal, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond it. It doesn't mention side effects like whether it's reversible, but the core behavior is well covered.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main action ('Makes the draft live'). It then provides necessary usage details for the returned URLs. The title adds a clear summary. It's slightly dense but every sentence earns its place.

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 publish action with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main behavior and return value usage. It doesn't explain what happens to the draft after publishing or whether it can be unpublished, but the sibling unpublish_asset implies reversibility. The description is complete enough for an agent to call the tool and handle the response.

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 only 33% (only premium has a description). The description doesn't explain the 'id' or 'note' parameters, but the schema already provides their names and types. The description adds context for 'premium' by mentioning paid credit and features, but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of descriptions on the other two parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema covers the basics.

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?

The title and description clearly state the action: 'Makes the draft live' and 'snapshot a version and update every embed'. This distinguishes it from siblings like unpublish_asset and update_asset. The description also specifies the resource (asset) and the effect (publishing a draft).

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?

The description implies when to use it: when you want to make a draft live. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the sibling list includes unpublish_asset, which provides context. The description gives clear usage context for the returned URLs, which helps the agent know what to do after calling.

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