publish_agent

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the mutation behavior (uploading from forge/, AI review, becoming permanent) and the two parameters. It does not mention destructive actions, auth needs, or rate limits, but the lifecycle is sufficiently transparent.

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 concise, front-loaded with an emoji and bilingual header, uses a clear bullet list for arguments, and every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers purpose, usage flow, parameter meanings, and outcome (transient to permanent via review). It is complete and self-contained.

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?

Given 0% schema coverage, the description fully explains both parameters: artifact_name is the folder name under forge/, and is_anonymous indicates anonymous upload (default real name). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 verb 'publish' and the resource 'artifact to TianGong community'. It explains the process of uploading from forge/ and transitioning from transient to permanent artifact after AI review, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like forge_agent or refine_agent.

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 clear context on when to use the tool (to publish an artifact to the community) and outlines the flow (upload, review, permanent status). It does not explicitly state when not to use or alternatives, but the process is well explained.

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