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

Annotations already declare it is a mutating, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds the specific behavioral effect: it changes the resolved version for workflows. This is useful context beyond the annotations, though it does not detail side effects like overwriting previous versions or permission requirements.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action and the result in 15 words, making it easy to scan.

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 simple mutation with two parameters and an output schema, the description covers the core behavior. It lacks explicit error cases or preconditions, but these are not critical for basic usage and the annotations cover safety traits.

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?

Both parameters are fully described in the input schema (version and template_id). The description adds no additional meaning beyond restating the action, so it stays at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Publish') and a clear resource ('an api template version'), and states the key outcome: making it the version workflows resolve when referenced as @published. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_api_template or get_api_template.

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 implies the tool is used to make a version live, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., publish_workflow) or mention prerequisites like the version needing to exist. There is no exclusion guidance, leaving the agent to infer context from the resource name.

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