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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true, and readOnly=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the two credential-supply mechanisms (argument vs. Authorization header) and the guarantee that credentials never appear in URLs or error output.

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 opening clause is front-loaded with the purpose and the credential guidance is useful, but the middle sentences spend scarce space on unexplained P4/P5 jargon that conveys little to a caller. Three dense sentences with unearned terminology.

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 destructive, non-read-only mutation with no output schema, the description should clarify effects and preconditions. Instead it omits the eligibility criterion, the meaning of slug/version_id, and what the P4/P5 references actually mean, leaving real gaps for a call that can destroy state.

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 only 33% — just the credential parameter is documented. The description adds meaning for credential (argument or header) but says nothing about slug format or what version_id must refer to, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented parameters.

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 verb+resource (publish an eligible version) is identifiable, but the core explanation is buried in opaque internal jargon ('canonical P5 replays and re-aggregates evidence', 'Never bypasses independent P4') that an agent cannot decode. No sibling tool is named to differentiate it from release_flow, upload_game, or publishing_contract.

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 phrase 'your exact eligible version' hints at a precondition but never states it explicitly, and there is no guidance on when to choose publish_game over siblings like release_flow or release_readiness. The credential sentence covers how to authenticate, not when to use the tool.

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