publish_session

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the commit-body behavior and that opening a PR is opt-in and leaves the machine ('pushes to the remote'), which is valuable side-effect context. It omits what gets staged/committed (whole working tree?), whether the branch is created or must pre-exist, and whether anything is pushed without pull_request.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then rationale, then the side-effect warning. The motivational clause about review being 'the only safety net' is arguably padding, but each sentence contributes something and length is appropriate.

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?

No annotations and no output schema, so the description must carry the behavioral load for a mutation tool. It covers the commit and the opt-in PR push, but leaves the commit scope, branch-creation semantics, and return behavior unspecified — adequate but with clear gaps.

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 60%; 'base' and 'branch' carry no schema description and receive no elucidation in the prose either. The description adds behavioral meaning around 'pull_request' (opt-in, pushes to remote), but this largely restates the schema note, and the two undocumented params remain unaddressed.

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: 'Put this session's changes on a branch as one reviewable commit.' An agent can tell it commits a session to a branch, and its effect (branch + commit + optional PR) distinguishes it from sibling mutators like revert_session or patch_group. However, it never explicitly names an alternative, so differentiation relies on inference.

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?

'Worth doing after any sizeable batch' gives a concrete when-to-use trigger, and the closing note establishes the rule that pull_request pushes to the remote and should be confirmed first. No explicit when-not or sibling alternative is offered, but the context is clear.

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