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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: preview-skipping logic, draft staging that leaves live untouched, and the weather-location default. The annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description clarifies that destructive paints occur only on first matching-display paint while other changes are staged safely, which resolves rather than contradicts the hint.

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 purpose and template list are front-loaded, followed by progressively narrower conditions. It is dense but each sentence carries distinct information (slug list, default, preview rule, draft staging, componentID); a minor length cost from the exhaustive slug enumeration.

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 7-parameter tool with no output schema and very low schema coverage, the description covers the important draft/preview semantics well but omits the concurrency (expectedRevision) and auth (controlToken) parameters, which an agent needs to invoke it correctly. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 14% (only 'slug' is described), so the description must carry the burden but largely does not. It clarifies componentID (required for data-only refreshes) and hints that params drive fields like weather location, but operationID, expectedRevision, and controlToken — core idempotency/concurrency/auth parameters — remain unexplained.

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?

Names a concrete verb+resource ('paints an approved catalog template') and enumerates the valid slugs (weather, clock, countdown, etc.), so the agent knows exactly what is being rendered. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from the draft-oriented siblings (prepare_draft, publish_draft), but the 'without generated source' qualifier narrows the scope meaningfully.

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?

Provides clear conditional context: first matching-display paint skips preview, version/source/display-fingerprint changes stage a private draft (previewRequired) and leave live untouched, and data-only refreshes require componentID. It stops short of naming alternative tools (e.g. when to prefer publish_draft instead), so no explicit exclusions are given.

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