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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but do not cover side effects like immediate publication or permission requirements. The description discloses that the record is 'publish it immediately,' requires CREATE permission, and returns a resource_key for later use. These are behavioral traits beyond the annotations, adding useful context for the agent.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. It provides essential usage details in a few sentences without redundancy. Every sentence adds value: purpose, schema constraint, return value, and permission.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description explains the return value (resource_key) and its use in subsequent operations. It covers the core requirements for calling the tool: schema matching, permission, and immediate publication. It could mention error handling or edge cases, but the essential information for correct invocation is present.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description reiterates that 'data must match the collection schema' and mentions the key for deduplication, but does not add substantial new meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 clearly states the action: 'Create a record in a collection and publish it immediately.' It identifies the resource (record/collection) and the effect (publish). It also distinguishes from siblings by mentioning get_record/update_record for subsequent operations, which implies this is the creation entry point.

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 provides clear usage context: 'data must match the collection schema (inspect it with describe_resource)' gives a prerequisite, and 'Requires the CREATE permission' sets an access condition. It also mentions the return value for follow-up calls, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative creation tools (none exist among siblings). This is strong guidance but lacks explicit exclusions.

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