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

Beyond the annotations, which already indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive operation, the description discloses key behavioral details: re-fetching, re-snapshotting, re-scanning, rebuilding for code bundles, diffing, auto-drafting a changelog, submitting for admin review, keeping the live version serving until approval, and being a no-op if the source is unchanged. This gives the agent a thorough understanding of side effects and outcomes.

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?

Although the description is long, it is dense and front-loaded with the core action and purpose. Every clause adds necessary behavioral, scoping, or safety information. There is no filler, and the structure leads from what it does, to the conditional submission behavior, to owner constraints, to sibling alternatives.

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 covers the full lifecycle: trigger, optional ref default, rebuild/scan behavior, diffing, submission for review, live-version continuity, no-op behavior, ownership requirements, source pinning, and explicit exclusions of other agent types. With an output schema also present, nothing an agent needs to decide whether and how to call this tool is missing.

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 already documents both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds useful behavioral reinforcement, such as the slug must be owned and the ref can be a branch, tag, or commit SHA with a default of the latest commit on the stored branch. It also clarifies that the repo is pinned to the agent's prior import, which adds meaningful context beyond the schema alone.

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 ('Publish a NEW version') and resource ('YOUR OWN published CODE-BUNDLE or SKILLS-BUNDLE agent') and explains the exact mechanism (re-pulling the OAuth-connected GitHub repo). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like findagent_bump_version and findagent_reintrospect_mcp, so an agent can clearly tell them apart.

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 states when this tool applies ('For code-bundle / skills-bundle only') and names the alternatives: 'doers/recipes re-version via findagent_bump_version, external mcp-server listings via findagent_reintrospect_mcp.' It also gives important preconditions such as owner-only, OAuth-connected repo, and pinned repo source, leaving no ambiguity about when to use it.

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