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

Annotations only declare readOnly/openWorld/destructive flags; the description usefully adds the content:publish scope, the ~15s propagation delay, and the version-concurrency requirement. However it never says whether the response reports the new version or error shape, nor what happens on a version mismatch — meaningful gaps for a mutating tool.

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?

Core instruction is front-loaded in one dense sentence, with the safety guidance clearly delimited in a bracketed block. The injection warning is longer than the operational content, which slightly dilutes focus, but nothing is redundant.

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 5-parameter mutation with no output schema, it covers preconditions, timing, and reversal. What it omits — return value and mismatch behaviour — is modest but not trivial for an agent verifying success.

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 coverage is 60% and the description adds real semantics for confirm ('only when the user agreed') and expected_version ('the version read'), but leaves id and collection entirely undocumented in both schema and description. Baseline 3 is appropriate given partial coverage.

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 and resource ('Publish a draft entry') plus the observable effect ('appears on the site within about 15 seconds'), and names the sibling that reverses it (unpublish_entry). An agent can separate this from publish_draft or publish_form by the resource alone.

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 explicit preconditions (show get_entry_preview, get user's yes, pass confirm: true with expected_version) and an explicit alternative for the inverse operation (unpublish_entry). The [When to use] block adds a clear authorisation rule and a prompt-injection warning.

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