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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false; the description usefully adds that the publish is immutable, build-free, gated by validation checks, and does not touch the working draft or client sites. It does not explain the optimistic-concurrency behavior, what happens to the previously published version, or whether the operation is reversible, which are the key residual risks for a destructive publish.

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 tight sentences with the outcome stated first, then the failure conditions, then the non-effects — no filler. The final sentence is a compact fragment, but it earns its place by bounding the blast radius.

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, non-open-world mutation with no output schema and three undocumented parameters, the definition covers preconditions and side-effect boundaries well but leaves the parameters and the success/failure result unexplained. An agent would still have to guess at the version tokens before calling.

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%, so the description carries the full burden for templateId, expectedVersion and expectedPageVersion, and it never names or defines them. The phrase 'contrôle manquant/périmé' only faintly hints that the expected* parameters are staleness guards, leaving the agent to infer their meaning and format from the schema types.

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 ('Publier') and resource ('une version immuable du modèle') and states the observable effect: immediately available in the catalogue and components, without a build. It distinguishes itself implicitly from archive_template, create_template_draft and update_template_metadata by describing an immutable publish, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 gives concrete preconditions for use ('Refuse tout contrôle manquant/périmé, composant non vérifié ou anomalie ouverte/bloquée'), which tells the agent when the call will fail. It also states scope exclusions (working draft and client sites are neither published nor modified), but does not point to alternatives such as creating a draft or archiving a template when publishing is not appropriate.

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