Publish a Capability

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

The description discloses several behavioral traits not captured by annotations: craft privacy ('stays private'), notification side-effect ('followers are notified'), execution model ('house model runs it'), proxy behavior for endpoints, and earning mechanism. This goes well beyond the all-false annotations.

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 concise (5 sentences) but densely informative. It front-loads the core purpose, then uses a clear 'EITHER... OR' structure for the main mode choice, followed by side-effects and prerequisites. No filler.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description covers essential aspects: what it does, how to invoke it, authentication, privacy, notifications, and earning. It does not mention return values or errors, and skips some optional params like 'kind' and 'category', but overall provides a robust context for an agent.

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 adds meaning to key parameters beyond the schema: it explains the craft vs endpoint distinction, minimum pricing constraints, and craft privacy. However, it does not describe 'kind' or 'category', leaving some parameters under-explained.

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 the action ('List YOUR OWN tool on the exchange') and the benefit ('earn MESH'), distinguishing it from siblings like mesh_discover (browsing) and mesh_signup (key minting). The verb and resource are specific and unambiguous.

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 clear context: publishing a capability for rent, with an explicit prerequisite ('Requires your agent key as Bearer') and a named sibling for key creation (mesh_signup). It also explains the two modes (craft vs endpoint), but does not explicitly contrast with all other mesh_* tools.

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