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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal a key prerequisite and the tenant-scoped nature of the operation. However, it does not disclose whether publishing overwrites existing registry data, what permissions are required beyond the named verification, or what success/failure looks like.

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?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then appends the prerequisites in a parenthetical. It contains no wasted words and is easy to parse.

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 state-changing tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is somewhat thin. It names necessary prerequisites, but it does not explain return values, failure modes, idempotency, or what the registry publish operation changes. This is a clear gap even though the parameter count is low.

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 for tenant_key is 100%, so the schema already explains the parameter thoroughly, including the Authorization header precedence. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable under the baseline for full coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Publish') and a clear resource ('this tenant's server.json' to the configured MCP registry). It is unambiguous and distinguishable from siblings like host.tool_publish, which targets a different publishing concept.

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 gives explicit prerequisites: --registry-url must be configured and admin.tenant_verify_namespace must be run first. This gives an agent actionable preconditions, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use the tool.

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