publish_capability

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and falls well short. It does not say whether publishing replaces or merges an existing manifest, whether it is idempotent, whether it requires prior registration, or whether it can be undone.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the source of the missing detail rather than a sign of completeness.

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 not be explained, but the definition still leaves major gaps for a mutation tool with zero annotations and zero parameter documentation. The overwrite/idempotency behavior and the meaning of the four optional fields are essential and absent.

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% for all four parameters, so the description is the only place semantics could be added, and it adds none. It never explains what capabilities, supported_languages, supported_frameworks, or description should contain, nor what happens when all optional parameters are omitted.

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 ("this agent's capability manifest") plus the intended outcome ("so peers can find it"). An agent can distinguish it from the read-side siblings lookup_capability and search_capabilities, but the description never names them, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The purpose clause implies the tool is for becoming discoverable, but the description never mentions the related siblings (lookup_capability, search_capabilities, register_tool, unregister_tool) or the conditions that select this tool over them.

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