publish_kit

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

The description says the operation writes to <workspace>/publish/<name> and creates a listing.md, which is a filesystem side effect. That directly contradicts readOnlyHint=true, so this is an annotation contradiction despite the otherwise rich workflow details.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but much of the description is one very long nested sentence with parentheticals and checklist details. The content is useful, yet the dense run-on structure makes it harder to scan than necessary.

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 complex 8-parameter tool with no output schema, it explains the output folder, listing.md, returned cover image, and screenshot expectations. The unmentioned mapPath parameter and unresolved read-only/write contradiction keep it from being fully complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining cover and images as {runId, playSeconds} screenshots, plus title, description, tags, optional video, and name via the folder path. It leaves mapPath and some length/array constraints unmentioned, but much of the 8-parameter surface is semantically grounded.

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 action: assemble a publish kit for a level from existing playtests, including cover, images, title, description, tags, optional video, and checklist. It explicitly says it does not publish, distinguishing it from the in-game publishing step.

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?

Says to use playtests that were already run and to deliberately capture screenshots at the best moments without debug markers. It also clarifies that this tool does not publish, but it does not name a sibling tool for creating the needed playtest or give explicit exclusion conditions.

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