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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this is an irreversible write; the description adds that embeds are updated everywhere and that history is pinned at '?v=N'. However, it never warns about the destructive/irreversible nature beyond the pinned-version aside, nor explains the two argument-relevant behaviors it implies (re-embedding downstream copies).

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the state change and then the return-value guidance. Phrasing like 'Returns urls:' is telegraphic and relies on the reader to infer the field names, but no sentence 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully tells the agent how to consume the returned urls (embedIframe vs png/page on Substack) and the pinned-version pattern. It remains incomplete on the mutation's consequences and on the undocumented 'note' parameter.

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' is documented), so the description is expected to compensate for 'id' and 'note' — it does not mention either. The return-shape guidance is about outputs, not inputs, leaving two parameters semantically empty.

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 opening 'Makes the draft live' states a clear verb and effect, and the title adds that it snapshots a version and updates every embed. It conveys what happens but never names the resource type (asset/brief) as precisely as its siblings update_asset or create_edit_link do.

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?

Usage is implied — you call this when the draft is ready to go live — but the description never says when to publish vs. update_asset, nor describes prerequisites or exclusions. Nothing routes the agent between siblings.

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