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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the irreversible lock on the version, the minimum-one-rule constraint, the fact that unread undefined facts do not block publishing, and three distinct failure conditions (ACT-032 targetVar not registered, 128 KB compiled-rule cap, P-058 expired effective end). That is exactly the operational detail an agent needs before invoking a mutation.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and its side effect, then prerequisites, then failure modes. Highly dense with no filler, though the final sentence packs three failure conditions and a remedy into one long clause, slightly straining readability.

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 no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers the transition, the lock, preconditions, and every known failure mode plus the remedy for each. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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% and all three parameters (groupId, versionId, memo) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics such as memo formatting expectations or id provenance, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 with the state transition spelled out ("Publish a DRAFT version (DRAFT → ACTIVE)"), and immediately names the consequence ("Locks the version from further edits"). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like lexq_deploy_deployable, lexq_versions_update, or lexq_versions_clone.

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?

Gives concrete prerequisites and routes the agent to sibling tools: call lexq_facts_unregistered first to review undefined facts, or lexq_versions_update to move the end into the future before retrying. It does not, however, contrast this with lexq_deploy_deployable or explain when publishing is the wrong path, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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