publish_model_table

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and non-idempotent, but the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: publication sweeps in OTHER pending customizations beyond the named table, and there is "no automatic save replay on publication failure." Those two facts are exactly the kind of blast-radius and failure-mode detail an agent cannot infer from the schema.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the operation and its scope surprise, with no filler. Slightly telegraphic phrasing ("PublishXml", "save replay") assumes platform familiarity but costs no words.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers scope expansion, preview-first flow, and failure behavior. Missing are prerequisites (permissions/solution context) and whether publication is reversible, which would matter before an agent commits with dryRun=false.

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 50% and the dryRun/dry_run preview semantics are already documented in the schema; the description only reinforces the default-preview behavior instead of extending it. The logical_name/logicalName pair, including why two aliases exist and how they interact, is unexplained in both places.

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 and resource ("PublishXml for one entire table") and immediately defines the blast radius ("including OTHER pending fields, forms, views and ribbon customizations"). It implicitly separates this from the narrower publish siblings (publish_model_choices, publish_ribbon_solution) but never names them, so a reader must infer the routing.

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 a usable workflow cue: default preview exposes scope, and "publication is separate from save" tells the agent to persist changes first. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or stating when NOT to publish a whole table versus narrower publish tools.

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