publish_changeset

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal a key prerequisite—the 'published' state choice must exist—and even notes it's absent on the current PDI, which is valuable. However, it omits other behavioral aspects like side effects, reversibility, or what happens if the prerequisite is missing, so it is only moderately transparent.

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 very short—one action sentence plus a note—and it front-loads the core action. It is concise and efficient, though the note about the prerequisite makes it slightly longer than the bare minimum. Still, every word earns its place, so it scores well on conciseness.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It mentions a prerequisite but does not describe return values, error behavior, idempotency, or what publishing actually entails. The agent is left without enough context to predict the outcome, so completeness is low.

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 describes changeset_id ('sys_id or name of the changeset') but publish_notes has no description, giving 50% coverage. The description adds no parameter information beyond the schema; it does not explain publish_notes or provide format hints. Since coverage is only 50%, the description should compensate but does not, leaving the agent to guess.

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 states a clear verb+resource: 'Publish a changeset.' It is specific and understandable, but it does not differentiate from siblings like commit_changeset or update_changeset, which could be confused. The purpose is clear but lacks explicit sibling distinction, so it falls short of a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only extra information is a prerequisite about the 'published' state choice, which is a technical requirement, not a usage directive. No mention of when commit_changeset or update_changeset would be more appropriate, so agents receive no routing help.

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