request_publish_output_schema

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool creates a pending approval pending human approval, does not directly publish, and returns the pending approval with readiness. This gives sufficient behavioral insight for a non-destructive 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?

The description is two sentences: first states the core purpose, second clarifies the non-publishing nature and return value. Every word is functional, no redundancy, and front-loaded with key 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 mentions the return value (pending approval). It does not explicitly list prerequisites or error conditions, but for a straightforward request tool with two parameters, it provides adequate context to use correctly. Slightly incomplete without mentioning required state of schema, but still solid.

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 describes the two parameters (id and changeSummary). The description adds no extra semantic detail about parameters beyond what the schema provides; only the overall tool behavior is explained.

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 action: 'Request that a output_schema be published.' It uses a specific verb ('request publish') and resource ('output_schema'), distinguishing from sibling tools like 'publish_output_schema' (if exists) by emphasizing it does NOT publish but creates a pending approval.

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 explicitly says 'This does NOT publish it — it creates a pending approval a human approves in Axonity.' This sets clear expectations for when to use this tool (to initiate approval) versus direct publish actions. However, it does not explicitly list alternative tools or exclusions.

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