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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, not destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, which gives some safety context. The description adds that it 'freezes current state' (implying a snapshot) and 'makes it live,' which is useful. However, it does not explain side effects like whether previous published versions are replaced or how versioning works. The addition is moderate but not rich enough for 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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the second sentence efficiently covers the access configuration. Every word earns its place, making this highly concise and clear.

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 the straightforward nature of the tool and that all parameters are documented in the schema, the description is largely complete. It clearly states what publishing does. The absence of an output schema means return values are not required. Minor gaps include not specifying prerequisites (e.g., app must exist) or post-publish steps, but these are not critical for this operation.

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% for all 4 parameters, so the description carries little additional weight. The description's mention of 'public URL is open, app-login gated, private, or inferred' matches the access_mode enum, but it does not add detail beyond what the schema descriptions already provide for make_public and auth_required. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Publish an app' and specifies what that entails: 'freeze current state and make it live at a URL.' It also mentions configuring access modes, which aligns with the access_mode parameter. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_app and update_app by focusing on the deployment/live stage.

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 the tool is used after creating/updating an app but does not explicitly say when to use it over alternatives. It lacks guidance such as 'use this after building your app to deploy it' or 'use update_app to modify the working version instead.' The reader must infer that publishing is the appropriate final step.

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