Publish a live timeline

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

Annotations already declare the write/external/irreversible profile (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=true); the description adds real value on top by disclosing that publication creates a public share link, that validation runs first and refuses invalid programs with fix hints, and what the payload contains. It does not cover link permanence/revocation or re-publish behavior, which is the main residual gap.

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?

Front-loads the verb, resource and public-share constraint in the first clause, then adds usage cues and the validation gate. Two sentences with quoted examples are efficient, though the stacked parentheticals ('a public share link') and example list make it slightly denser than needed.

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, side effect, validation behavior and usage context, and an output schema exists so return values need not be spelled out. Combined with annotations that carry the destructive/open-world profile, an agent has what it needs to decide and invoke correctly.

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 100%, with 'program' and 'allowInvalid' both documented (including the 'only when the user explicitly wants an imperfect draft shared' caveat), so the baseline is 3. The description's 'validates first and refuses an invalid program' lightly reinforces the allowInvalid semantics but adds no format or shape detail beyond the schema pointer to validate_program.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Publish a program as a live, shareable timeline (a public share link)' — plus what it returns (URL, ASCII Gantt, itinerary). The 'public share link' framing implicitly separates it from local-render siblings like preview_timeline, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use cue with concrete user phrasings ('plan this so it all finishes at 6', 'when do I start each thing'), tying the tool to shareable/followed schedules. It never states when NOT to use it or names the alternative (preview_timeline, analyze_schedule) for non-published inspection, so it falls short of explicit routing.

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