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

Annotations cover the safety profile (idempotent, destructive, open-world), and the description adds substantial non-structured context: the signing requirement (X-Agent-Id/X-Signature/X-Timestamp or owner session), content-addressing by SHA-256, free identical re-uploads, deduped runtime bytes, and the accepted-hash allowlist. This is well beyond what annotations convey.

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?

Front-loaded and information-dense, but the ALL-CAPS emphasis throughout and the bulky eight-hash allowlist make it read as a wall of text; the hash list is data that would sit better in a schema enum, and the overall length is heavy.

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 13-param mutation with no output schema, it covers auth, both payload shapes, the mandatory dependency, and pricing semantics well. It does not describe the publish response (e.g. resulting hash/URL), which with no output schema is a minor remaining gap.

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 is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains that deps MUST contain an accepted runtime hash and lists them, and clarifies the entry_html vs files/entry mutual exclusivity and window.__XMBL__ setup, going beyond the schema text.

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+resource ('Publish an xmbl-NATIVE miniapp') and immediately scopes it against the plain-app alternative ('512kb ... vs 256kb for plain apps'), so an agent can distinguish it from publish_app without opening either schema.

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?

Clearly lays out the two usage modes (PAYLOAD-ONLY via entry_html vs FULL via files+entry) and the hard requirement to include an xmbl runtime hash in deps, and contrasts with plain apps. It gives strong context but never explicitly states when to prefer this over a sibling like publish_app.

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