Move Company Action Plan Template Into "Published"

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

Beyond the annotations, the description adds key behavioral details: setting status to Published, denying further updates, and creating a new Action Plan object with HTTP 201 response. This explains the mutation and side effects.

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 moderately sized and front-loaded, but contains some redundancy (e.g., 'Move... into Published' and 'set the status... to Published') and tautological phrasing ('Use this to perform the move company action').

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains the return value (created object with 201) and the behavioral change (status set, updates denied). It lacks prerequisites or guidance on current state needed before publishing.

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 parameters. The description only repeats that they are required, adding no extra meaning beyond the schema.

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 the action ('Move... into Published') and specifies that it sets the status to Published, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'move_company_action_plan_template_into_in_revision' which handle different state transitions.

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 implies usage for publishing a template when ready (by noting further updates are denied) but does not explicitly compare with other state transitions or provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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