we_publish_prepare

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds a genuinely useful scope boundary (it writes staging artifacts but performs no asset packing and no network upload), yet it says nothing about where staging output lands, whether repeated calls overwrite prior staging, or what the 'preparation report' contains.

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 the action first and the scope exclusion second; there is no filler. The terse semicolon clause is slightly cryptic, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it frames the operation and its boundary, and the mention of a 'preparation report' gestures at the return value. It is incomplete on intent semantics, prerequisites (e.g. must a project exist first) and where staged sources are written.

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% and the description contributes no parameter meaning at all: neither projectId nor the new/update intent enum is explained, nor does it state what 'update' changes versus 'new'. The low coverage means the description should compensate and it does not.

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 verb 'stage' plus the resources ('offline runtime sources and a preparation report') make the purpose concrete, and the clause about never packing native assets or uploading to Workshop draws a sharp boundary that separates it from a real publish/upload step. It stops short of naming a sibling tool, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 guidance, no stated prerequisites, and no named alternative. The negative scope ('never packs... or uploads') hints that this is a preparatory step before publishing, but the agent must infer that this is the right starting point rather than, say, we_project_apply or we_project_validate.

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