preview_agent_marketplace_action_publication

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers rich behavioral detail: it validates RBAC and visibility policy, returns an immutable contract digest, performs no approval/activation/registration/installation/invocation, restricts shared visibility to portable platform contracts, and documents the currently truthful visibility/pricing options. This gives the agent a clear model of what will and will not happen.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, invocation ordering, server behavior, outputs, explicit non-actions, and important constraint caveats. It uses formatting and code identifiers to keep technical terms unambiguous without adding fluff.

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 governed, multi-step marketplace action, the description covers purpose, sequencing, validation behavior, output digest, and critical visibility/pricing constraints. Since an output schema exists, return-value documentation is not required. It could slightly improve by naming the successor publication tool explicitly, but the contextual guidance is otherwise strong.

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%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics for domain/action resolution, visibility (PRIVATE safe default, PUBLIC partner-tier gated), and pricing_model (only INCLUDED is accepted). It does not elaborate on slug, name, version, or changelog, but those are largely self-explanatory from the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Preview a governed action contract before any marketplace publication.' It further clarifies what the tool resolves (domain + action), what it validates (publisher RBAC and visibility policy), and what it returns (expected_contract_digest). This clearly distinguishes it from publication, activation, installation, and invocation tools.

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 explicitly says 'Always call this first,' establishing when to use it in the publication workflow. It also gives explicit when-not guidance: 'This tool does not approve, activate, register, install, or invoke a runtime action.' This prevents an agent from using this preview tool as a substitute for mutation steps in the marketplace lifecycle.

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