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

The description clarifies that the tool creates a version and optionally publishes it immediately, consistent with readOnlyHint=false. It does not imply destructive or idempotent behavior, aligning with the annotations. The side effects are described sufficiently for an agent to understand the operation's impact.

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?

The description is moderately concise, though it repeats 'dynamic endpoint' several times. It uses parentheses for the exception and provides clear stepwise guidance. The structure is logical and easy to parse, though it could be slightly tightened.

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?

Given the nested definition object and presence of an output schema, the description covers the key aspects: target, definition authoring, and publishing. It does not detail version numbering or error handling, but these are not essential for basic usage. The sibling tools provide additional context, making the description complete enough.

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?

All three parameters are fully described in the schema, with the description adding extra context for definition (author against schema, validation on submit) and publish (defaults to false). The endpoint_id parameter is clearly defined as the target identifier. This fully covers parameter meanings.

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 clearly states the tool adds a new version to an existing dynamic endpoint identified by endpoint_id. It explicitly distinguishes this from creating a brand-new endpoint by referencing create_dynamic_endpoint, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description provides clear guidance on when to use this tool (for existing endpoints) and when to use the alternative (for new endpoints). It also instructs to author the definition against the schema from get_dynamic_endpoint_definition_schema and explains the publish parameter, giving practical usage context.

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