publish_solution

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior: it publishes solutions for reuse, returns a confirmation, and requires specific formatting. However, it lacks details on potential errors, rate limits, or authentication needs, which would be helpful for a mutation tool.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidelines, return value, and important notes. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 the tool's complexity (a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage, parameters, and expected return. However, it could improve by detailing error cases or confirmation format, but the absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by stating the return type.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by emphasizing the format requirements for query_title ('Fix [error] in [tech]' or 'Configure [tool] for [goal]') and advising conciseness for solution_body, which provides context beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Publish a working fix to cache.overflow so other agents can reuse it.' It specifies the exact action (publish), resource (working fix), and target system (cache.overflow). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_solution (which likely retrieves) or submit_feedback (which provides feedback).

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 provides explicit usage guidelines: 'Best for: After solving any non-trivial problem that took more than 2 tool calls to diagnose and fix.' It also specifies when to use it ('Publish BEFORE moving on to the next task') and includes format requirements, helping differentiate it from alternatives like submit_verification or unlock_solution.

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