Publish the working diff to the environment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly explains the side effects: it backs up current server state, performs an async import, publishes via PublishXml, and verifies by re-reading. It also discloses timeout behavior ('returns status 'importing'') and what is returned (backup id). This is rich, honest, and goes well beyond basic expectations.

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 structured as a concise, linear sequence of steps, packed with essential information about the publishing pipeline, timeout handling, and return values. Every sentence and clause earns its place, with no fluff or repetition. It is front-loaded with the primary action ('Validate, back up, then write').

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 tool is complex (multi-step, async, mutating), yet the description explains the full workflow, return status, backup id, and how to handle timeouts. Since there is no output schema, the description adequately covers return values and follow-up behavior. It is complete for an agent to decide when to use it and what to expect.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage of all three parameters with detailed descriptions. The tool description adds marginal value by referencing waitSeconds in the workflow ('wait up to waitSeconds') and mentioning entity specifics implicitly, but it does not offer significant new semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: to publish the working RibbonDiffXml to the environment, with a specific process (validate, backup, import, publish, verify). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ribbon_publish_status (explicitly mentioned as a follow-up for long imports) and ribbon_restore_backup (via the returned backup id).

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?

It provides clear context on when to use this tool (when you have a working diff to publish) and explicitly directs to ribbon_publish_status if the import outlasts the wait. However, it does not enumerate exclusions or alternative tools beyond that, so it stops short of a 5.

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