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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, non-idempotent operation. The description adds useful context beyond that: it publishes the current draft by default, can publish a specific historical version, and returns 204 on success. This gives the agent a clear picture of the operation's behavior 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?

Three short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by the prerequisite, version behavior, and return code. Every sentence contributes operational value.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, this description covers the key facts an agent needs: the prerequisite, default vs. historical version behavior, and the success response (204). Nothing essential is missing 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both notification_id and version effectively. The description reinforces the version semantics ('e.g. v001', omit to publish current draft) but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Publish'), a specific resource ('notification template'), and the intended outcome ('making it available for sending'). It also names a related sibling tool (send_message_template) and explains the lifecycle relationship, which distinguishes it from other publish_* tools like publish_journey_template or publish_tenant_template.

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?

Explicitly states the prerequisite: must be called before send_message_template unless the template was created with state 'PUBLISHED'. It also clarifies when to omit vs. provide the version parameter, giving concrete operational guidance rather than leaving usage to inference.

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