publish_check

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive write, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds upsert semantics (data_source_id updates in place, dependent reports auto-pick up new columns), but omits side effects on existing scripts, authorization needs, and rate/limits.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and the conditional extras. No filler, though the parenthetical clause is slightly dense.

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?

For a 5-param mutation tool with no output schema and no param descriptions, the description covers the conditional params but says nothing about required params (name/script/columns), return values, or error behavior. Adequate but with visible 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 description coverage is 0% across 5 params, so the description has to carry the load. It explains data_source_id (in-place update) and report_name (optional report) and implies what columns does, but leaves name and script (the PowerShell content) unexplained.

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+resource: publishes a PowerShell script as an Action1 data source and optionally a custom report. It clearly contrasts with the list_/get_data_source siblings by being the only publish/create-style tool, though it doesn't name a sibling explicitly.

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?

Gives concrete conditional guidance: pass report_name to also build a custom report, and pass data_source_id to update an existing source in place rather than create a new one. It does not address alternatives or prerequisites like permissions.

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