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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the publish action is understood to mutate state. The description adds useful behavioral context: it publishes the 'exact current version' only after gates pass, and paid packs have an additional Stripe Connect prerequisite. No contradiction with 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?

Two sentences, no filler. The main action is front-loaded, followed by the gating condition and the paid-pack caveat. Every sentence adds necessary information.

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 publish operation with two simple parameters, the description covers the key workflow conditions: AVCP gate passage and Stripe Connect for paid packs. It does not explain the AVCP gate mechanism or explicitly mention the confirmation parameter, but those are either domain concepts or covered by the schema.

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?

The schema describes productId as 'Tetrees AI Pack product id' and confirmation is a self-documenting const value ('PUBLISH_AGENT_PACK'). Schema coverage is only 50%, and the description does not add parameter-level detail, but the const value and the simple two-parameter schema carry the semantic weight adequately.

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 the exact current version') and the resource (an Agent AVCP-passing pack), and adds the necessary precondition that all mandatory Agent AVCP gates must pass. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like upload_ai_pack or submit_ai_pack_for_audition, which handle earlier stages of the pack lifecycle.

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 explicitly says when this tool should be used: after every mandatory Agent AVCP gate passes. It also adds a conditional requirement for paid packs ('Stripe Connect before checkout'). It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the conditions are clear enough to route an agent to this tool versus siblings.

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