agora_publish_artifact

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full disclosure burden. It names the local publication boundary, LocalPolicyEngine files.read authorization, symlink refusal, secret-filename deny-list, byte cap, and server-side hash recomputation—rich safety and trust behavior.

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: purpose first, then safety boundaries. No restating of name or title, no filler; every clause adds either scope or a behavioral guarantee.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need not be described, and behavior/purpose are well covered. However, with 0% schema coverage across six parameters, the description leaves required and optional parameter meanings unexplained, so it is not fully complete for 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 coverage is 0% for six parameters, and the description only glosses file_path ('exactly ONE local file...'). It never explains required artifact_id, optional media_type, mission_id, mission_task_id, or parent_artifact_version_id, leaving most parameters semantically undocumented.

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 ('Publish') and resource ('Artifact'), and the 'new immutable version' scope plus one-local-file-only restriction distinguishes it from sibling create/read artifact tools and from publishing modules or agent versions.

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 clear context: must name exactly one local file, never a directory, never a remote-peer path. It does not name alternative sibling tools (e.g., create_artifact) or explain when to choose them, 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.