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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses the state transition, the irreversible consequence that published templates cannot be modified, the required scope, and the shared billing/rate-limit behavior. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by scope, endpoint mapping, and a guardrail against inventing paths. The opening line 'Publish a template' is somewhat redundant with the tool name, but nearly every other sentence earns its place.

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 simple action with one required parameter, the description provides the endpoint, scope, side effect, and a useful anti-hallucination note. It does not describe the response format or behavior when publishing an already-published or non-draft template, but those are minor given the annotations and schema.

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?

The input schema already covers both parameters with 100% description coverage. The description adds that `id` appears in the URL path, which is mildly useful, but it does not otherwise elaborate parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it publishes a draft template and makes it available for pass generation. It also clearly distinguishes this state-transition tool from create/update/delete/get/list operations by naming the operationId and endpoint.

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 gives clear context that this is for publishing draft templates and notes that published templates cannot be modified, implying a boundary around when the action applies. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the draft-template framing is sufficient for typical routing.

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