nexus_publish_revision

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true; the description goes further by explaining the concrete irreversibility ('hard to undo'), the required ownership, and the mitigation route. It also states the return contract ({success} or error string), so the agent understands the non-local effects beyond the schema.

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?

Three short sections: purpose, consequence/undo, returns. No filler, and the most decision-relevant fact ('hard to undo', retract path) appears early.

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 annotations, output schema, and 100% schema coverage, the description covers ownership, effect, undo path, and return shape. It could more fully explain the optional collection_status values and edge cases, but nothing essential for a safe call 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?

The input schema already covers all three parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning about revision_id, collection_status, or has_adult_resources beyond what the schema states.

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?

Description names the exact verb and object ('Publish a draft collection revision'), adds the ownership precondition and API version, and contrasts the action with the undo sibling nexus_retract_revision. This clearly distinguishes it from the many collection-revision siblings.

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?

It provides a clear precondition ('must own the collection') and states the consequence ('makes the revision publicly available') with an explicit pointer to nexus_retract_revision as the undo path. It does not enumerate when to choose publish over list/unlist or discard, but the 'hard to undo' warning plus sibling reference gives agents a usable decision rule.

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