request_publish_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It clearly describes the behavioral outcome (creates a pending approval, returns it with readiness). It does not contradict any annotations, and the mutating but non-destructive nature is adequately communicated.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action ('Request that a tool be published'), and every sentence adds value with no unnecessary words.

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 with readiness). It covers the essential behavior and distinguishes from siblings. It lacks details on what 'readiness' means or the approval process, but for a simple request tool it is mostly complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. The explanation of 'changeSummary' as a note for the approver is already in the schema 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 explicitly states 'Request that a tool be published' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the actual publishing action and from sibling tools that request publishing for other entities (e.g., persona, workflow).

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 clarifies the intended use (to request publication) and importantly what it does NOT do ('This does NOT publish it'). It provides clear context but does not explicitly outline when not to use or list alternatives beyond the implicit distinction from direct publishing.

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