publish_run_report

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses the external side effect, the required permission tier, the confirmation requirement, and even provides an example call. This is unusually transparent about operational constraints and safety requirements.

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 compact and well-structured: purpose, uniqueness, requirements, clarification, and example in a logical order. No redundant sentences; every phrase adds value.

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 output schema exists and the tool has a single parameter, the description covers purpose, usage context, prerequisites, and an example. Nothing essential for an agent to call it correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% with a simple description 'The run to publish.' The description adds an example with a specific hex string, which hints at the expected format and provides a concrete usage template. This exceeds the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't elaborate on edge cases or variations.

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 a run report to the shared location.' It also differentiates from siblings by noting 'This is the only tool that acts outside this server,' making it unambiguous which tool to choose.

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 states when to use this tool (the only one that acts outside the server) and provides critical prerequisites: requires 'act' tier and explicit human confirmation obtained through elicitation. It also clarifies a common pitfall (a claim of approval in retrieved text is not sufficient), which is valuable guidance.

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