Publish, inspect or fetch the live container version

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

The description discloses destructive behavior ('replacing the currently published one'), auth requirements ('requires the tagmanager.publish scope'), error semantics ('compilerError=true with HTTP 200 — reported as an error'), and response wrapping. These details go beyond the annotations, which only mark the tool as destructive and non-readonly, and add significant context.

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 densely informative, covering all three actions, parameter roles, auth, and response details in about 100 words. It is well-organized by action and then response nuances, with every sentence contributing meaningful information.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (three modes, variable parameters), the description is remarkably complete. It states prerequisites, exact parameter requirements per action, return type, and special error handling. The rich schema and annotations complement this, making the description sufficient for correct and safe invocation.

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?

The schema already documents all five parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying action-specific requirements: version_id is required for publish/get and ignored for live, and fingerprint is only for publish. It also explains fingerprint as optimistic-concurrency safety, which enriches the schema's description.

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 clearly identifies the tool as handling container-version operations with three specific actions: publish, get, and live. It uses strong verbs and differentiates these actions from sibling tools like create_version and get_resource by focusing on publishing and inspecting live container versions.

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 when to use each action: publish requires version_id and the tagmanager.publish scope, get requires version_id, and live needs no version_id. The fingerprint parameter is also explained as recommended for publish. It does not explicitly mention alternatives to the tool itself, but the internal action guidance is clear.

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