Api risk matrices publish draft create

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds real behavior beyond that: it snapshots history and bumps the version on publish, which explains why the call is non-idempotent and clarifies side effects not captured by annotations. It stops short of stating permissions or whether the draft is discarded afterward, keeping it at a 4.

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?

A single dense sentence with zero filler, and the core effect is front-loaded. The arrow/abbreviation shorthand trades some readability for brevity, so it is not quite a 5.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, it discloses the main side effects (snapshot, version bump) but omits the preconditions (editing draft must exist) and what the published artifact looks like. Adequate but with clear gaps an agent must guess around.

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% and the sole required parameter 'id' is never mentioned in the description; it does not clarify that the id identifies the risk matrix draft to publish, or any format/constraint. With one undocumented parameter carrying no compensating prose, this falls below the 0-param baseline.

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?

Specific verb (publish) and resource (editing_draft) with the transformation spelled out via arrow notation ('editing_draft → json_definition, snapshot history, bump version'). It is distinguishable from sibling operations like save_draft, discard_draft, or start_editing, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this vs. save_draft, discard_draft, or preview-style siblings, and no prerequisites (e.g., the matrix must already be in an editing draft via start_editing). The usage context is only inferable from the name.

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