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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true); the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the version is added to an existing endpoint rather than creating one, publish defaults to draft, and the owning service validates the definition on submit. It stops short of describing failure/rollback behavior or what the created version record contains, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

A single tight paragraph with the core action and the existing-vs-new distinction front-loaded, followed by the schema-authoring pointer and the publish shortcut. Every clause carries information, though the parenthetical alternative could be folded more compactly.

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 an output schema present, annotations covering safety, and full schema coverage, the description supplies exactly what's missing: which sibling to use instead, how to obtain the definition schema, and the publish shortcut. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is absent.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema, including publish defaulting to false and the definition object's validation. The description's 'Pass publish=true to take this dynamic endpoint version live immediately' largely restates the publish parameter's schema text, so the baseline of 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 ('add a new version to an EXISTING dynamic endpoint') and scopes it to an endpoint_id, immediately separating it from the brand-new-endpoint sibling create_dynamic_endpoint. An agent can distinguish it from the version-creation siblings (create_app_version, create_schema_version, etc.) by the resource named.

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?

Explicitly names when to use it ('evolve a dynamic endpoint you already created'), when not to ('For a brand-new dynamic endpoint, use create_dynamic_endpoint'), and points at the prerequisite tool get_dynamic_endpoint_definition_schema for authoring the definition. The publish=true shortcut is also called out as an alternative to a separate publish step.

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