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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the description's job is lighter. It adds genuinely useful behavioral context by stating the runtime effect of publishing — that '@published' resolution in workflows switches to this version. It omits the consequence for the previously published version (replacement) and any 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?

One tightly constructed sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the resolution semantics appended as needed context. No filler, nothing repeated from annotations or 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?

For a two-parameter, mutation-style tool with full schema coverage, an output schema (so return values need no explanation), and complete annotations, the description covers what the tool does and why it matters. The remaining gap is the effect on the previously live version and any preconditions, which an agent would still have to guess.

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%: both template_id and version are documented in the schema, including the meaning of version ('the version number to make live'). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so 3 is the correct baseline when the schema carries the weight.

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 pairs a specific verb ('Publish') with a specific resource ('an api template version') and then explains what publishing semantically achieves: workflows resolving the reference '@published' pick up this version. This differentiates it clearly from the parallel publish_* siblings (publish_workflow, publish_schedule, etc.) and from update_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 meaning of 'publish' is explained, which implies the usage context, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of a prerequisite (the version must presumably exist via create_api_template_version), and no statement about how this differs from unpublish or update operations. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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