publish_matched_delivery

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 prerequisites (matched scopes with snapshots), an environment dependency (QGIS discovery or CAD2GIS_QGIS_PYTHON, no shell command), and explicit non-goals. It says nothing about the write side: whether files under delivery_root are overwritten, whether the call is idempotent, or how partial failures surface.

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 short sentences, artifact and mechanism front-loaded, zero filler. Dense jargon ('six-file', 'populated scope') slightly raises reading cost but nothing is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no prose. However, for a publish operation with no annotations and 0% parameter descriptions, the definition leaves the caller guessing about the meaning of its arguments and the overwrite behavior at delivery_root.

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% across three parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. 'Frozen snapshots' and 'its own snapshot' gesture at osm_snapshots but never explain that it maps scope identifiers to snapshot paths, and run_dir vs. delivery_root are never distinguished.

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 and artifact: 'Publish matched scopes as six-file SVG/OSM deliveries using frozen snapshots.' This distinguishes it from siblings like build_source_svg_delivery and package_qgis_delivery, though the 'six-file' artifact is never unpacked and 'matched scopes' is assumed domain jargon.

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?

'Every populated scope must be matched and have its own snapshot' gives a concrete precondition, and 'This does not accept the candidate or establish survey accuracy' rules out a nearby workflow. It never names the alternative tool an agent should call to perform that acceptance step, so routing is implied rather than explicit.

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