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

With annotations only saying readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false, the description adds the key behavior: publishing the current draft and optionally rolling back to a prior version. This meaningfully explains state mutation without contradicting the 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?

One concise sentence front-loads the primary action and punctuates the optional variant. No filler or repetition of parameter names.

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 three-parameter publish action with no output schema, the description supplies the essential scope and the optional rollback behavior. A bit more detail about the effect on existing published versions could make it fully complete, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds value only for version, clarifying it is used to roll back to a prior version, while notification_id and journey_id remain covered by the schema.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Publish the current draft of a journey-scoped notification template.' This makes the operation distinct from siblings like publish_journey or publish_notification by adding the journey-template scope.

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?

It clearly states the default use case (publish current draft) and the optional version-rollback branch. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusions, but the journey-scoped wording gives enough context for an agent to route to this tool among the publish_* siblings.

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