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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=true; the description adds genuinely new behavior — that publishing changes employee visibility, that no notifications are sent, and that the change is reversible via unpublish. That reversibility context is exactly what the destructive annotation alone cannot convey.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the effect and immediately followed by the notification caveat and undo route. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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 one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the definition covers effect, side-effect (no notifications), and reversal, which is most of what an agent needs. The batch size ceiling (1000 ids) is left to the schema and could have been surfaced.

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?

There is a single required parameter already documented at 100% schema coverage ('The shift ids to publish'), and the description adds no format, ordering, or batching guidance beyond it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the semantics.

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 draft shifts') plus the resulting state change ('so employees can see them'), which separates it cleanly from wheniwork_create_shift and wheniwork_update_shift.

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?

Makes the precondition clear (shifts must be in draft) and names the inverse operation wheniwork_unpublish_shifts as the undo path. It does not spell out when an agent should choose this over scheduling via create_shift, so it falls short of a full 5.

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