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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=true, so the description adds real value: it clarifies that publishing itself sends no notifications, and that the action is reversible via unpublish. Those are non-obvious behavioral traits an agent could not infer from the schema.

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, each doing distinct work (effect, behavioral caveat, undo path), with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler.

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 description covers effect, notification behavior, and reversibility. It omits permission/auth requirements and any batching or rate considerations, but nothing essential to correct invocation 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% and the single 'ids' parameter is already documented in the schema ('The shift ids to publish.'). The description adds no format, ordering, or batch-limit detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 ('Publish'), the resource ('draft shifts'), and the observable effect ('so employees can see them'), which cleanly separates it from wheniwork_unpublish_shifts and the create/update shift tools.

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?

It tells the agent the input state this applies to (draft shifts) and names the reverse operation (wheniwork_unpublish_shifts) for undoing it. It stops short of an explicit 'do not use this if...' condition or permission prerequisites, but the routing context is clear.

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