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

Beyond the minimal annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: Swamp never fetches or runs the artifact, the artifact remains at the user's URL, the checksum must match the published bytes, and a mismatched checksum is flaggable as a lie. This gives an agent a strong model of the operation's trust and verification semantics.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence and the most important operational constraints following efficiently. Every sentence earns its place; there is no repetition of schema fields or filler.

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 tool's purpose, key verification behavior, and value constraints, which is enough to invoke it correctly. It does not explain the response or success/failure semantics, but with no output schema and a straightforward publish action, this is a minor 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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning by clarifying that checksum is the hash of the exact published bytes, that the artifact URL must stay live, and that platform/category take display names from list_tools rather than numbers. This goes beyond what the schema alone states.

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 and resource: publish a tool, script, or app you built. It clearly stands apart from sibling publish_* tools by describing the object being published and the offchain, attributed tier.

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?

It explicitly states this is the no-wallet, no-stake, offchain tier and that artifact URLs must stay live, which tells an agent when this path is appropriate. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the context is clear enough to avoid confusion with publish_output, publish_finding, or publish_thought.

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