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

Annotations already declare destructive/idempotent/openWorld, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: the in-conversation explicit-consent precondition and the atomic failure mode where a changed list is not published. This goes well beyond what the structured annotations 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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the precondition, then the failure mode. Every sentence carries distinct, non-redundant information with 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?

Covers the preconditions and failure mode thoroughly for a confirmation-gated publish with no output schema. It stops short of describing the successful outcome (e.g., that the list becomes publicly visible or what a successful call returns), leaving a small gap.

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%, including a detailed conditional description for the optional 'handle' param and the origin of 'reviewId'. The description adds no parameter-level detail (format, syntax, edge cases) beyond the schema, 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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Publish the exact list the owner reviewed,' with the gating condition that makes it distinct from a plain publish step. An agent can tell this is the confirmation-gated publish rather than the staging/review sibling without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it (only after the owner agrees to the summary in this conversation), when not to (never on an earlier general instruction like 'publish when done'), and the failure path (if anything changed, nothing is published and a fresh review comes back). This is exactly the when/when-not/alternative structure the dimension rewards.

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