publish

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: storage is conditional on verify.cmd running with dependencies installed plus a review pass, the result reports accepted/rejected with reasons, and published versions are immutable. These are exactly the non-obvious behavioral traits an agent needs before invoking.

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?

Front-loaded with intent, then input forms, payload contract, and acceptance rules in a logical order with no filler. It is dense and the inline frontmatter block is slightly cramped, but every sentence carries information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe outcomes; it does ('the result says accepted or rejected and why') and adds the type-specific rule that skill packages need SKILL.md frontmatter matching the id. Nothing material for a correct 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?

Schema coverage is 100% so baseline is 3, but the description goes far beyond it: it specifies the directory-vs-object forms of `from`, mandates that `handoff.json` be present, and documents the handoff.json payload fields including which are optional and the x.y.z version format.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Publish a package') plus the effect and audience ('so other agents can find and pull it'), which immediately distinguishes it from the read-side siblings search and pull.

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?

Explains the two supported input modes and when to use the object form ('when you cannot write files'), and states the update path ('Published versions never change: publish a new version to update'). It does not explicitly name search/pull as alternatives for non-publishing tasks, so 4 rather than 5.

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