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

Annotations already declare the write/non-destructive profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false). The description adds genuine value beyond them: auth requirement, full validation on revision, that the new version supersedes the old while the old stays readable, and that points only count for score improvement. It does not discuss failure modes or limits, but the added lifecycle and reward context is substantive.

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 clauses, front-loaded with the core action and scope, no filler or repetition. Each sentence adds a distinct, useful fact (auth/free, validation/supersede behavior, reward rule).

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 5-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the lifecycle and reward model well but omits any explanation of the three optional parameters. An agent can call it with id and body, but cannot know when title, category, or sourceDeclaration matter.

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 5 parameters, so the description must carry the burden of explaining id, body, title, category, and sourceDeclaration. It only obliquely implies the id ('a unit you authored') and says nothing about title, category, or sourceDeclaration, leaving three parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 verb+resource is specific: 'Publish a new version of a unit you authored' clearly distinguishes revision from creation. It implies differentiation from submit_knowledge (new) by the phrase 'new version,' but never names a sibling, so an agent must infer the boundary. Clear purpose, weak explicit differentiation.

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?

'Requires auth, free' and 'a unit you authored' give implicit preconditions for use, and the points clause hints at the incentive context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance and no pointer to alternatives like submit_knowledge for new units or retire_knowledge for removal.

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