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

Annotations declare a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive write. The description adds material context beyond that: the write is a PUBLIC publication (an irreversible visibility consequence the annotations do not convey), it is free of charge, and it requires a previously succeeded generation. It does not cover auth requirements or what happens if the generation is republished.

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 tight fragments with zero filler, front-loaded on the action and destinations, then cost and the permission gate. Every clause carries distinct information; nothing repeats the schema or title.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, which generation types qualify, the destination libraries, the cost, and the user-consent requirement. The remaining unknowns (return payload) are not needed since no output schema is declared.

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?

One parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the load. "A succeeded generation" usefully constrains generation_id to a completed generation, but gives no format, ID source, or how to obtain a valid value (e.g. via get_generation or list_generations). Partial compensation only.

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?

States a specific verb (Publishes), a specific resource (a succeeded generation of type PBR material or HDRI), and two destinations: the public community library and the user's library. No sibling tool (list_my_library, download_asset, get_generation) does this, and the dual-destination scope makes the tool's effect 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?

"Only when the user asks" is an explicit gating condition, and "Free" tells the agent this does not consume credits unlike the generate_* / quote_generation siblings. The prerequisite that the generation must have succeeded is implied by "a succeeded generation". No named alternative is given, so it stops short of a 5.

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