airtable_publish_interface

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and handles it well. It discloses concrete behavioral traits: it uses Chrome CDP browser automation, clicks the blue Publish button, confirms multi-page confirmation modals, requires Chrome running with '--remote-debugging-port=9223', and publishes all draft changes to all users with interface access. This goes well beyond generic verb phrasing.

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 with clear labeled sections, front-loads the primary action, and every sentence earns its place. The when-to-use, when-not-to-use, and operational disclosures are organized for quick scanning by an agent.

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?

For a publication/finalization tool with no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, side effects, persistence scope, and the automated modal-confirmation behavior. There is no significant gap that would prevent an agent from invoking it correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents base_id and cdp_port. The description reinforces the cdp_port context by mentioning the remote debugging port prerequisite, but does not add meaningful parameter-level detail 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Finalizes and publishes all Interface Designer draft changes to production.' It clearly differentiates this from sibling tools like airtable_create_interface_page or airtable_configure_kanban by framing it as the publishing/finalization step, not an editing or creation step.

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 includes explicit 'When to Use' and 'When NOT to Use' sections, stating it should be used after edits are complete and as the final workflow step, and not used while still editing or for schema changes. However, it does not name an explicit sibling alternative (e.g., airtable_modify_schema) for schema changes, though it implies the distinction by saying schema changes are live immediately without publishing.

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