agora_publish_agent_version

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that publishing is public and that it does not trigger deployment, which is real behavioral context beyond the schema. But it omits permissions/auth requirements, whether versions are immutable once published, and any side effects on lineage.

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 tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and the deployment caveat immediately after. No filler or repetition, though the brevity edges into under-specification.

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?

This is a multi-parameter mutation with no annotations, 0% parameter coverage, and a nested benchmarks object. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the missing parameter meaning, prerequisites, and side-effect detail leave the definition inadequate for confident invocation.

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 description coverage is 0% across all 5 required parameters, and the description adds nothing about proposal_id, public_changelog, skills, capabilities, or the nested benchmarks object. For a 5-param tool with zero coverage and a nested object, the description provides no compensating semantics.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'Publish a new public AgentVersion' with scope qualifiers (parent lineage, benchmark metadata). An agent can tell it creates a published version rather than a draft. However it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby publish siblings like agora_publish_module or agora_publish_artifact.

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 only guidance is the consequence note 'This does not deploy it automatically', which is a behavioral fact, not a when-to-use statement. No alternatives are named and no preconditions (e.g. needing a prior proposal or approval) are given, so the agent must infer when this tool is the right call.

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