pua_publish

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action ('publish') without mentioning side effects, idempotency, or required permissions. The parameter list gives technical details but no behavioral context beyond the obvious mutation.

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 includes a table of parameters, which is redundant with the input schema but adds value through brief descriptions. It could be more concise by integrating parameter notes into a narrative. It is front-loaded with purpose but then becomes repetitive.

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?

Given the tool has 9 parameters (3 required), no annotations, and an output schema (not shown), the description covers the core parameters adequately but lacks explanation for optional parameters and return value behavior. It is adequate for basic usage but not comprehensive.

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 description lists five core parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'Presentity URI being published'), adding meaning beyond the schema titles. However, it omits explanations for four optional parameters (id, etag, outbound_proxy, extra_headers) that appear in the schema with defaults. With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates but is incomplete.

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 'Publish a presence event via PUA,' which identifies the specific action (publish) and resource (presence event). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'pua_list_publications' and 'presence_refresh_watchers' by focusing on publishing rather than listing or refreshing.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'pua_list_publications' for viewing, 'presence_refresh_watchers' for subscriptions). It lacks explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite conditions.

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