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

Annotations only declare openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, providing little behavioral context. The description adds meaningful behavior: versions are immutable, property order is preserved verbatim, media/uploads/cron/colors need an x-tessryx-ui hint or they render as bare text, and publish chooses the live version. It does not fully explain what happens to prior versions or drafts, but it discloses the key operational behaviors beyond the annotations.

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 a compact paragraph that front-loads the core purpose (add a new version to an EXISTING schema), then gives the key behavioral caveats and the sibling differentiator. Every sentence carries information; no filler or redundancy.

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 tool's moderate complexity, 3 parameters, and an output schema, the description covers the essential context: existing schema usage, immutability, property order, publish behavior, and referencing get_guide for hints. It is slightly less complete than the top-tier examples because it doesn't mention version listing or rollback behavior, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 the schema already documents schema_id, json_schema, and publish. The description adds value by explaining the verbatim property-order semantics and noting that publish=true is the common create-then-publish convenience. However, the description doesn't add much deep parameter-level detail beyond the schema, keeping it at 4.

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 states a specific verb (add a new version) and resource (an EXISTING schema by schema_id) and contrasts it with create_schema for brand-new schemas. It clearly distinguishes create_schema_version from sibling tools like create_workflow_version and create_schema.

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 says to use create_schema for a brand-new schema, and this tool for evolving an existing schema. It also explains publish=true as a convenience for create-then-publish in one step, and directs users to get_guide('schemas') for hints. This is strong when-to-use guidance with exclusions.

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