mesh_publish

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses authentication requirements and the reward structure (earn MESH, follower notifications). However, it does not specify whether the call is idempotent, overwrites existing listings, or what error conditions exist. Some behavioral details are missing.

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 at four sentences, with the main purpose in the first sentence. It is front-loaded and each sentence adds context. One could argue it omits some details, but overall it is efficiently structured.

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 7 parameters including a nested 'steps' array and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the 'kind' parameter (tool/feed/workflow), how to use 'steps', or what the return value is. An agent may struggle to correctly invoke the tool for non-tool types.

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 schema covers 57% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds value by summarizing the essential parameters (name, price, endpoint) and their roles, but does not explain kind, steps, category, or description input in detail. It improves understanding but does not fully compensate for low schema coverage.

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 tool's purpose: listing your own tool on the exchange to earn MESH. The verb 'List' paired with 'YOUR OWN tool' and the context of renting make the action unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like mesh_discover (discovering tools) and mesh_signup (minting keys).

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 a clear scenario: when you want to publish your own tool for rental income. It mentions prerequisites (agent key Bearer from mesh_signup) and hints at optional endpoint usage. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use (e.g., for discovering tools use mesh_discover), but the purpose is so specific that misuse is unlikely.

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