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

Annotations already convey that the tool is mutating, non-idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the authentication requirement and clarifies that it creates a new standalone proposal rather than modifying an existing contribution. This is useful context beyond the structured annotations.

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 description is two sentences with no fluff. The main action is front-loaded, and the sibling-routing guidance is placed immediately after in a compact, scannable format.

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 low-complexity tool with two required string parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: what it does, when to use it, and a key prerequisite. It does not describe the return value, but for a straightforward write action this is not a significant gap.

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 100%, so both debate_id and body are already documented. The description adds only the general notion of a 'standalone proposal,' which slightly reinforces the body's purpose but does not add parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses a specific verb ('Publish') and a clear resource ('a new standalone proposal in an open debate'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming what argue and amend do instead, so an agent can select the right tool without opening their schemas.

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?

The description gives explicit routing guidance: use argue to respond to reasoning and amend to propose replacement text. It also states a prerequisite (participant authentication), which helps the agent determine whether this tool is appropriate in the current context.

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