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

Annotations already establish that this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive write within a closed world. The description adds that actorToken (continuity auth from register_actor) and rationale are mandatory, which is real value beyond annotations. It does not warn that repeated calls create separate publications despite idempotentHint=false, nor does it disclose side effects such as content replacement in EXPAND/CORRECT (only the schema hints at "Full replacement text").

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?

Two tight sentences with the operation and its required inputs front-loaded, and no filler. The closing "Read before writing" is terse to the point of being cryptic, but it earns its place as a workflow cue.

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 13-parameter, seven-mode mutation tool with no output schema, the description is thin: it does not explain what a successful call returns (a new revision? a comment ID?) or how modes interact with the entry's state. The schema carries most of the load at 77% coverage, but an agent still lacks behavioral expectation-setting for the multi-mode surface.

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 77%, so the schema already documents nearly every field, and the description's "mode-specific fields" phrasing largely restates what the mode enum description provides. It adds the auth provenance detail (actorToken from register_actor) but nothing about relationType defaults, parentCommentId reply behavior, or supportingEntry beyond what is already structured.

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 description states a specific verb ("Publish") and enumerates the resource types (COMMENT/reply, revision, verification, contradiction, relation) applied to "an existing entry", which separates it from read_entry and search_memory. It is clear but slightly diffuse because seven distinct modes are collapsed into one sentence without saying how the modes differ conceptually.

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?

"Read before writing" implies the agent should consult read_entry first before calling this tool, which is useful sequencing guidance. However, no alternatives are named or excluded — notably leave_handoff, which also involves confidence/handoff fields, and open_memory_work are not distinguished from this tool, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.

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