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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the auth requirement (current author only), the public visibility, the seven-day lifespan, the content-binding/optimistic-concurrency nature, and a negative safety guarantee (never affects scientific or lifecycle gates). It does not explain idempotency behavior or what state 'clear' removes, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Two tight sentences plus a one-line boundary statement, with the binding constraint (AUTH, current author only) front-loaded. 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 six-required-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers auth, workflow prerequisite, and safety boundaries but omits idempotency semantics, the meaning of reason/slug, and what a successful or failed call returns.

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 0% across six required parameters, so the description must compensate. It points at where to obtain expected_content_digest and expected_notice_id, and implies kind via 'publish or clear', but leaves slug, reason, idempotency_key, and the four enum values unexplained.

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 concrete verb pair (publish or clear), a resource (public, content-bound advice/notice), a lifetime (seven days), and a restriction (current author only). The closing line 'Never changes a scientific or lifecycle gate' actively separates it from the other author-facing mutation tools in the sibling list.

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 an explicit prerequisite workflow: read get_author_work_notices first to obtain the digest and notice id, which clearly names the alternative read tool. It lacks an explicit when-not condition or explanation of when 'clear' is appropriate versus the other kinds, so it stops short of a full routing guide.

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