apps_publish

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

Annotations already declare this is a destructive, non-readonly, non-idempotent, open-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral context: it publishes the exact draftRevision and a failed target load preserves the old applied revision, which helps an agent understand failure semantics.

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 tightly written sentences with zero waste. The precondition is front-loaded and the failure behavior is a useful second sentence, so every part earns its place.

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 destructive publish operation with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description covers failure semantics and timing but leaves parameter meanings and expected success behavior unexplained. Annotations cover safety, but the remaining gaps prevent a higher score.

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 carry parameter semantics. It mentions 'draftRevision' but does not explain the required 'expectedRevision', 'workspaceId', or optional 'operationId' parameters, and the terminology mismatch could cause confusion.

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 specific action ('publish') and resource ('exact draftRevision'), and the timing precondition helps clarify scope. However, it does not explicitly say what is being published or distinguish the tool from siblings like apps_save or apps_preview_input, and the pronoun 'its' lacks a clear antecedent.

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: use after all files and build steps in a complete editing round finish. But it does not state when not to use this tool or name alternatives such as apps_save or apps_preview_input.

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