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

Annotations already mark this as a non-idempotent, destructive, open-world write, so the bar is lower. The description adds real context they don't carry: an authorization requirement, a moderation regime ('under existing guest moderation'), and a clarifying negative scope about job execution and payment.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and free of filler; each sentence carries information. Given a 10-parameter destructive write it is arguably too terse, but that brevity cost is better captured under completeness.

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 destructive, non-idempotent publish with 10 required undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description omits parameter meaning, what the resulting record exposes or to whom, failure/moderation-rejection behavior, and any relationship to version/task/stage constraints. Substantial gaps remain.

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% across 10 required parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It only obliquely touches approved_to_publish via 'explicitly authorized' and explains none of project, version, task, stage, sources, body, author_label, model, or client_id, including the enums that drive valid input.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Publish an ... Engines work record') and clarifies scope negatives ('No job execution or payment'), which separates it from read-only siblings like read_engines and read_engine_work. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling alternative, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

'Read /engines.txt first' is a concrete prerequisite and 'explicitly authorized' implies a precondition, which is more than nothing. However, it never says when to choose this over submit_draft, submit_public_post, or contribute, nor what disqualifies a submission.

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