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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two real traits: published versions are immutable and prior versions stay retrievable for reproducible validation. It does not state authentication expectations despite an accessToken parameter, does not say whether the schema is validated before publication, and says nothing about failure behavior or idempotency.

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 short sentences with no filler; the core action comes first and the versioning consequence follows. Nothing is repeated and nothing is padded.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, so the description has to do more than two sentences. Missing are the auth requirement implied by accessToken, whether the operation is idempotent via operationId, and what a successful publish returns or how validation errors 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 0% across four parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It never explains contractId (a 36-char identifier), accessToken, the schema payload's format, or the purpose of operationId — a caller cannot tell from the text whether operationId provides idempotency.

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 new immutable version of an existing private data contract. The versioning scope ('new version of an existing' contract) distinguishes it from a plain create operation, though it never names contract_create or contract_history as the contrasting siblings.

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 word 'existing' implies a precondition (a contract must already exist), and the mention of older versions implies this is the way to iterate on a contract. But there is no explicit when-to-use versus contract_create, contract_validate, or contract_history, and no statement of what to do if the contract does not yet exist.

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