tandem_publish_artifact

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and succeeds: it discloses immutability, version-on-republish, a 4MiB UTF8 content limit, and that logical names are not filesystem paths. It also explicitly states 'no file is read or modified,' which prevents a common false assumption about artifact handling.

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 short sentences with the core operation and versioning behavior front-loaded, followed by return guidance and practical constraints. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 publication tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential operational facts: what is published, versioning semantics, how to use the returned artifact_id, content size/encoding limits, and the non-filesystem caveat. The main missing context is clearer guidance on when to use this versus reading or exporting artifacts, but that is a usage guideline gap rather than a completeness failure.

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?

The description adds meaningful semantics for two parameters: content is limited to 4MiB UTF8, and name is a logical, versioned identifier rather than a filesystem path. However, media_type and conversation_id are left unexplained in both the schema and the description, so the agent must infer their roles from the enum and parameter names alone.

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 leads with a specific verb and resource: 'Publish immutable shared context,' and immediately clarifies versioning behavior with 'each same-name publication creates a new version.' This clearly distinguishes it as a publication tool from siblings like tandem_read_artifact, tandem_list, or tandem_export_context.

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 usage is implied: you publish a named artifact for a partner, then return artifact_id in a follow-up. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over tandem_read_artifact, tandem_export_context, or other siblings, nor does it describe exclusions or alternative conditions.

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