publish_package

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the full sequence of side effects (git commit, tag, push, npm publish), which is good. However, it doesn't disclose that the 0-parameter tool will infer package/version from context or conventions, and doesn't mention failure modes, rollback options, or authentication requirements for npm/GitHub.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the workflow steps. Slightly dense with the step enumeration but all are relevant. The 'ALWAYS use this' directive adds clear emphasis for the AGENT. No wasted 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?

The description lists the full workflow steps which helps the agent understand scope. However, given this is a complex multi-step publishing operation with no output schema and no annotations, it could benefit from disclosing what the return value looks like or what happens if the git commit fails mid-pipeline (partial state). The description covers the 'what' but not the 'what if'.

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 tool has 0 parameters, so there's no schema to compensate for. The description compensates by explaining what the tool does internally without requiring inputs. With 0 params and 100% schema coverage, baseline is 4, and the description aligns with this.

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 executes a complete package publishing workflow with specific verb+resource (publish_package) and lists concrete steps: reviews changes, version bump, builds, updates version, git commit/tag, push, npm publish. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like test_package or commit_pr, though its scope is fairly unique (publishing).

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 explicitly says 'ALWAYS use this for publishing konnexx-dev-mcp' which provides strong when-to-use guidance specific to this package. It doesn't provide when-not-to-use or alternative tools, but given the tool's specialized purpose, the context is reasonably clear.

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