Publish an application

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the key behavioral trait: it makes the app 'live for viewers,' implying a potentially impactful/irreversible action that affects end users. However, it doesn't mention whether authentication/ownership is required, whether there's a confirmation step, or any side effects beyond publishing.

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 a single, focused sentence with zero filler. It directly states the action, the object, and the consequence. Nothing could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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?

This is a single-parameter, side-effect-heavy action with no annotations and no output schema. The description conveys the core purpose but could add context about what happens to the current live version, whether prior save is needed, or what the viewer-facing impact is beyond 'live.' For a mutating deploy action with no annotation coverage, there's room for more behavioral context.

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% with a single parameter (applicationId) documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides ('Application id.'), so it meets the baseline but adds no extra value for the single parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Deploys') with a clear resource (edit-mode state of an application) and outcome ('making it live for viewers'). It clearly distinguishes from read tools and the sibling export_application (which exports vs. deploys). However, it doesn't explicitly name any alternative for comparison.

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 implies usage context ('Deploys the current edit-mode state') which suggests when it's relevant (when edit-mode state differs from published). It doesn't give explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or name alternatives. The mention of 'edit-mode state' is useful but implicit guidance.

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