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

Adds valuable context beyond annotations: published templates become immutable, the action requires the 'templates:manage' scope, and it shares the same API/billing/rate limits. Annotations already cover readOnly/destructive/idempotent hints, and the description supplements them without contradiction.

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 well-structured, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and uses bold headers for scope and API mapping. Every sentence earns its place, including the guard against inventing other paths, and it is appropriately sized.

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 purpose, preconditions (draft), post-condition (immutability), scope, and API mapping. The main gap is lack of response format details, but with no output schema and full parameter coverage, this is a minor omission.

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% with descriptions for both id and x_app_id. The description references the POST path containing {id} but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states it publishes a draft template to make it available for pass generation, using a specific verb ('publish') and resource ('template'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like create, update, and delete by describing the lifecycle stage and the irreversibility after publishing.

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?

Provides clear context: use when a draft template is ready for publication, and notes published templates cannot be modified, implying edits must occur beforehand. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., updateTemplate) or state when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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