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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false; the description adds the real-world consequence (the participant link becomes live, i.e. public exposure) and the consent guardrail, which is meaningful context beyond the flags. It doesn't state whether publishing is reversible or how to unpublish, which matters for a destructive-hinted mutation.

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-loads the action and effect, then the consent rule, then the return-value guidance; each sentence carries information. The parenthetical 'also as respondentLink' is a small digression but resolves a real field-naming ambiguity.

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 one-parameter publish mutation with an output schema, the description covers the action, the consent precondition, and how to use the returned shareUrl/editorUrl. The main remaining gap is reversibility/unpublish behavior, which is relevant given destructiveHint=true.

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?

There is a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, and the schema already says it comes from survey_list. The description adds no further semantics about surveyId, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (publish) plus the concrete effect ('so its participant link takes responses'), which tells an agent exactly what changes. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like survey_get, survey_create, or survey_update_title.

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?

Gives an explicit guardrail ('Publish only when the user has asked to') and a routing rule that suppresses a follow-up call ('no survey_get is needed to confirm it'). It does not cover edge cases such as re-publishing an already-live survey or unpublishing, so it stops short of a full when/when-not matrix.

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