publish_customizations

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

Annotations already establish non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond those hints: the dry-run returns a verified target/command, and execution is gated on allow_writes=true. This helps an agent understand the tool's safety workflow without contradicting the 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?

Two sentences carry the core action, the prerequisite, the default behavior, and the distinction between verification and execution. There is no filler, and the most important usage guardrail is front-loaded.

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?

The description covers the tool's main workflow and safety gate, but it leaves notable gaps: the environment parameter is undefined, allow_writes is referenced but not exposed in the schema, and the result of an actual publish (dry_run=false) is not described. With no output schema and a non-trivial publish operation, this is adequate but not fully complete.

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 for both parameters. It does explain dry_run's role and default well, but it does not clarify what values environment should take or how allow_writes (mentioned in the description but absent from the schema) is supplied. The compensation is partial rather than complete.

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 ('Publish all customizations') and the resource ('in an allowlisted environment'), and it maps to the known pac solution publish command. It is distinct enough from the sibling tools like pack_solution and import_solution that its purpose is understandable, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with alternatives.

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 gives concrete usage context: dry_run=true is the safe default that verifies the target and command, while actual execution requires allow_writes=true and dry_run=false. It doesn't name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, but the workflow guidance is clear and actionable.

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