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

Annotations already disclose destructive=true, idempotent=true, readOnly=false, and openWorld=true. The description adds useful domain context—immutable download version and creator runtime going offline—but does not expand on permissions, irreversibility, or what exactly is destroyed.

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler. Each sentence adds either the core action or a meaningful postcondition.

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 destructive, open-world publish tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, the description is too thin. Although annotations cover the safety profile, the agent still lacks parameter guidance and prerequisite context needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema has 11 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description provides no per-parameter meaning. 'Royalty split' loosely gestures at price/rights fields and 'download version' at files, but this does not compensate for undocumented required fields like request_id, project_id, title, description, and rights_confirmed.

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 action (publish) and object (stored, immutable download version), making the intent clear rather than tautological. However, it does not differentiate this from sibling product lifecycle tools such as product_create or product_amend, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are provided. The note that creator runtime may go offline afterwards describes a consequence, not a condition for selecting this tool over siblings.

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