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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: publication exposes only the redacted stored snapshot until seven-day expiry, public copies cannot be recalled, and there is no target ownership or safety claim. These details are critical for a destructive, open-world operation and are consistent with the destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true 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, front-loaded, and each sentence adds operational or safety-relevant information. There is no redundant restatement of the tool name or annotations.

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, open-world tool, the description covers the critical prerequisites, confirmation behavior, redaction/expiry, irreversibility, and key-handling warnings. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The main remaining gap is full explanation of all parameters, especially published and report_id.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains management_key's origin and confirm's no-op-unless-true behavior, and 'publication or revocation' implies the published flag. However, it does not explicitly document report_id or spell out how published=false triggers revocation, leaving gaps for a four-parameter tool.

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 states a specific resource (saved MCP diagnostic snapshot) and the actions involved (publication or revocation), plus the required management key from diagnose_mcp(save_report=true). The only ambiguity is that it opens with 'Preview publication or revocation,' which may momentarily suggest a preview-only tool, though the later 'No action unless confirm=true' clarifies that real publication/revocation occurs with confirmation.

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?

It gives clear invocation conditions: a management key from diagnose_mcp(save_report=true) is required, and no action occurs unless confirm=true. It also warns never to put the key in URLs, public reports or messages. It does not explicitly compare against sibling alternatives, but the key-origin and confirmation conditions provide strong operational guidance.

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