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

Annotations already declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), so the description only needs supporting context. It adds meaningful behavior beyond that: the membership precondition that causes rejection and the important scoping rule that publishing promotes only the manifest, never members that publish on their own lifecycles.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core effect front-loaded, then rejection condition, then scope caveat. No filler, though the final sentence is dense and borders on clarifying a distinction more relevant to a nearby tool.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the key precondition and the manifest-vs-members scope, leaving little an agent needs that is 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both app_id and version are already documented in the schema. The description mentions the version's membership semantics, which adds a little meaning, but provides no format or selection details beyond the schema — baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Publish an app version') and explains the resulting effect ('making it the live manifest, visible per role, its selector authoritative'). It is clearly distinct from unpublish_app and the create_*_version siblings, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Gives one concrete precondition ('Rejected if the version's membership selects nothing'), which implies when the call will fail. However, it offers no guidance on when to publish versus creating a new version or unpublishing, so usage context is only implied.

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