github_publish_start

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and non-idempotent. The description adds important behavioral details: it only commits already-staged changes, pushes without force, and monitors in the background. It also mentions the never-runs-git-add rule, giving the agent a clear mental model beyond the annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every phrase adds value. It packs the key workflow, safety constraint, and cross-tool referral without 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?

While the description explains the high-level process, it does not clarify what the tool returns (e.g., a job ID) or how the agent should interpret the outcome. Given there is no output schema, the missing return-value information is a notable gap, though the instruction to use job_wait partially compensates by implying a follow-up mechanism.

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 schema already covers 83% of parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context around the commitMessage and remote parameters by mentioning 'commit already-staged changes' and 'push without force', but it doesn't substantially augment the schema's parameter documentation.

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 starts a dashboard-tracked GitHub publish process: optionally commit staged changes, push without force, and monitor GitHub Actions in the background. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like job_start by specifying the GitHub publish workflow and the key constraint of never running git add.

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?

Provides practical usage guidance: 'This never runs git add' clarifies an important limitation, and 'Use job_wait once if the workflow should continue automatically after publishing' directs the agent to a specific next step. It does not explicitly list when to use alternatives, but the workflow context and sibling hints give clear enough direction.

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