aethis_publish

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

Annotations declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, but the description adds materially more: tests run first, failure blocks publication, force bypasses, and the previous active ruleset is auto-deprecated. The auto-deprecation side effect is exactly the kind of context annotations do not 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?

Three short sentences, zero waste, with the core action and its gating condition front-loaded. Every sentence carries distinct information (action, test gate, side effect).

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the key risk behaviors an agent needs: test gating, force override, and deprecation of the prior ruleset. What publish returns and whether the deprecation is reversible is left unstated, 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 schema already documents all four parameters, including the force semantics the description echoes. The description reinforces force but adds nothing about name or label beyond what the schema states, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Publish) and resource (the latest ruleset) with clear scope, and separates itself from create_ruleset/aethis_update_rulebook by operating on the 'latest' existing ruleset. It stops short of naming a sibling, so sibling differentiation is only implied.

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 description gives one concrete conditional (tests must pass unless force=true), which implies when the tool will refuse, but it never says when an agent should choose publish over create_ruleset or the rulebook update tools. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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