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

Annotations only declare the generic safety profile (not read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive); the description adds real behavior: a ~15 s Muse review that can refuse and report specific issues, the public visibility consequence, the required user confirmation, and the idempotent republish semantics. None of that is recoverable from the structured fields.

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?

Four tightly packed sentences, each carrying distinct information (destination, review behavior, idempotency, confirmation requirement), with the outcome front-loaded. Parentheticals add precision rather than 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 publish tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: what gets exposed, that review may reject with reasons, latency expectations, republish semantics, and the user-consent prerequisite.

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 coverage is 100% and the single assetId parameter is already documented as the assetId of a web app. The description reinforces this implicitly ('an asset of type web', 'the current version') but adds no format or lookup detail, so 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 (publish) and resource (a web app the agent built, asset of type web) plus the concrete outcome: a public link viewable by anyone, signed in or not. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling muse_unshare_web_app and from muse_list_assets.

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 clear operating context: publish only after confirming with the user, and re-calling republishes the current version. It does not explicitly name an alternative sibling or state when NOT to publish, which keeps it short of a 5.

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