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

Annotations already mark this as non-read-only, non-idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: published versions are immutable, never change, and can be pinned by runs and evaluations. This explains the key side effect of publishing without contradicting the 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?

Four sentences, no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. Every sentence adds either the mechanism, the optional behavior, or the consequence of publishing.

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?

The description, combined with the 100% schema coverage, annotations, and output schema, gives an agent everything needed to call this tool correctly. It explains immutability, the draft-vs-config choice, version bump selection, and the pinning use case.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the relationship between the current draft, the optional config parameter, and releaseType's major/minor bump behavior, which ties the parameters together in a way the schema does not.

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 verb ('Publish'), a precise resource ('classifier's current draft config'), and the resulting artifact ('new immutable semver version'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like publish_extractor_version and publish_splitter_version by targeting classifiers specifically.

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 gives clear context: publish the draft or supply a config instead, and keep iterating on the draft afterward. It doesn't explicitly name the alternative tool (e.g., update_classifier) for editing the draft, so it falls just short of fully explicit 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.