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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: the return shape (version, published, conflict), that a conflict retains the candidate without activating it, and that unpinned links follow the active version. It does not cover permissions/tier limits, which is a modest remaining gap.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and return contract, then constraints. Every sentence carries distinct information; none restates the schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully explains the return fields and conflict semantics, and the 9-param schema is fully documented on its own. Only auth/tier prerequisites and the upload dependency are unstated, which is acceptable but not exhaustive for a destructive mutation.

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 coverage is 100% and the parameter descriptions are already detailed (label vs. link name, expires requiring link_label, base_version required for revisions), so the description adds no new parameter meaning. 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Publish a new HTML document or revision') and immediately differentiates the two modes (create vs. revise) plus routes link edits to the link tools, separating it from shareout_create_link and shareout_activate_version.

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 a clear exclusion ('Use the link tools for later link changes') and a hard constraint ('Never pass document bytes'), so the agent knows not to do post-publish link edits here. It stops short of spelling out the prerequisite upload flow that prepare_upload implies.

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