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

Annotations flag this as a non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world write, but the description adds the consequences the annotations cannot: the change becomes publicly visible to post readers, earlier versions persist in history and can be restored, and no new post is created. That is material context an agent needs before triggering an outward-facing mutation, and it does not contradict any hint.

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 tight sentences, each doing distinct work: what happens, when to call / when not to, and the existence precondition. The public-visibility consequence is front-loaded where it matters most for a mutation.

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 two-parameter public-facing mutation with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, nothing an agent needs is missing: effect, alternatives, precondition, reversibility, and visibility are all stated. Return values are not needed since no output schema exists and none is implied.

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%, so the parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description adds a bit beyond the schema by framing the note as 'a published note's current text,' implying the note must be a published note and that saved text as of now is what gets shipped.

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?

Uses a specific verb (publish) on a specific resource (a published note's current text as the next post version) and explicitly separates itself from editing the note (update_note) and from first-time publishing. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like update_note or list_posts without opening a 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?

Gives an explicit when-to-call ('only when the user asked to publish or update the post') and an explicit when-not ('not as a follow-up to editing'), plus a precondition ('only updates a post that already exists; a note is published for the first time from RemainAI's Posts page'). This is the rare case where routing is fully spelled out.

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