publish_prepared

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose meaningful side-effect behavior: the original is retained, and materials, LOD settings, and source attribution survive publication, and the original remains reprocessable. It is silent on permissions, error cases, and whether publication is reversible, so it is only partially complete.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the required arguments and persistence guarantees. No filler, though the third sentence slightly restates the retention point already made in sentence one.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must carry more weight. It covers the key persistence behavior but not return values, error semantics, or what 'the engine' entails, leaving gaps for a tool that appears to be a terminal publishing step.

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 description coverage is 0%, so both parameters are undocumented in the schema and the description must compensate. It contextualizes asset_id as 'the completed preview's asset_id' but says nothing about what request_id is or where it comes from, so the coverage gap is only half filled.

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 and resource: 'Send an accepted isolated import_asset preview to the engine.' It names the source artifact (an accepted preview from import_asset), which lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like publish_blend or prepare_asset. It does not explicitly contrast against those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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 prerequisite is implied through 'accepted' and 'completed preview's asset_id,' suggesting this is the terminal step after a preview is accepted. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not guidance, and no named alternative (e.g., publish_blend), leaving the agent to infer the workflow position.

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