request_publish_agent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool does not publish but creates a pending approval requiring human approval, and returns the pending approval with its readiness. This explains the core behavior and outcome, though it could elaborate on prerequisites or side effects.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the action and immediately clarify the key caveat (does not publish). No superfluous words; every sentence adds essential 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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value. It covers the core action and the pending approval process. It lacks explicit prerequisites (e.g., agent must exist and be in draft state) but these may be inferred from tool context. Slight gap on error conditions.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the return value (pending approval with readiness), which is not covered by the input schema. It also aligns with the schema's parameter descriptions but does not add new detail beyond that.

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 states the verb 'Request that a agent be published' and specifies the resource (agent). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly naming 'agent' and contrasting with the fact it does not publish directly, which is relevant since sibling tools include other request_publish_* tools.

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 provides clear context that this tool creates a pending approval rather than publishing directly. However, it does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives (e.g., when the agent is not ready) or provide exclusion criteria. The sibling tools imply usage for agent-specific publication requests.

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