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

The description discloses important behavioral details beyond the annotations: it is a mutating operation (publish), it fails when membership selects nothing, and it has a scoped side effect (only the manifest, not members). This goes beyond the basic readOnly/idempotent/destructive hints and gives the agent a clear model of what will happen.

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 two sentences, each packed with relevant information. There is no redundant phrasing, and the structure flows logically from the primary action to the rejection condition and then to the scope of the side effect.

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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown), so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the core behavior, a key failure mode, and the side-effect scope, which are the most important contextual aspects for an agent deciding to call this tool. No critical information appears to be missing.

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?

The schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (app_id and version) with 100% coverage. The description adds context that the version must have a non-empty membership to be accepted, which deepens understanding of the version parameter's role. This is a slight enhancement over the schema baseline.

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 precisely what the tool does: publishes an app version to make it the live manifest. It further clarifies the scope (only the manifest, not members) which distinguishes it from related publish tools. The verb 'publish' combined with the resource 'app' is explicit and 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 gives a clear rejection condition ('Rejected if the version's membership selects nothing') and explains that publishing only promotes the manifest, not members, which tells the agent when to use this versus other publish operations. It does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over unpublish_app or how to revert, but the provided context is sufficient for typical usage.

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