publish_prompt

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

Goes meaningfully beyond the annotations by disclosing blast radius ('immediately routes all callers using the slug') and irreversibility ('no rollback') — behavior an agent cannot infer from readOnlyHint=false / openWorldHint=true. It does not cover permission requirements or what happens to existing labels/routing during the switch, leaving some operational context unstated, but the safety-critical warning is present.

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 most decision-relevant content — the sibling disambiguation — is front-loaded in the first sentence, and nothing is padding. It is compressed into one long run-on sentence covering disambiguation, effect, and prerequisites, which is dense but slightly harder to scan than separate sentences would be.

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?

With only two required, well-documented parameters and an output schema that handles return values, the description is nearly complete: it covers alternatives, effect, irreversibility, and prerequisites. The remaining gap is recovery guidance — if there is no rollback, the agent is not told how to reverse an accidental publish (e.g., re-publishing a prior version).

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (prompt_id as ID or slug, version as a positive version number) are already fully documented in the schema. The description only restates 'specific version' and 'using the slug' without adding format, ordering, or lookup guidance beyond what the schema provides, 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 and resource (publish a version of a prompt as the active default) and immediately contrasts it with two named siblings: promote_prompt (copies across environments) and update_prompt (creates a new draft). The agent can distinguish this tool from its nearest alternatives without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use: use this to make a version the live default, not to copy across environments (promote_prompt) and not to create new content (update_prompt first). It also names list_prompt_versions as the prerequisite step for choosing the version, giving a complete usage path.

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