npm_publish_preflight

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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations by detailing the non-interactive assumptions, the pass/fail/warn checklist return, and the structured actions with exact human-run commands. It also explains why the tool behaves this way (agent constraints), providing rich behavioral context with no contradiction to annotations.

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 front-loaded with a one-line purpose, followed by a compact, information-dense breakdown of checks and behavioral constraints. Every sentence contributes value—the non-interactive caveat, the checklist scope, and the output mode—without filler.

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 no output schema, the description thoroughly covers return semantics (actionable checklist with pass/fail/warn, exact human commands), prerequisites (non-interactive), and distinguishes itself from related publish operations. It provides everything an agent needs to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'name' ('Package name to publish (e.g. '@yawlabs/npmjs-mcp')'). The description does not add extra parameter details, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the parameter is simple and unambiguous.

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 tool's purpose: 'Comprehensive pre-publish validation — run before publishing ANY npm package.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by covering a broad checklist (auth, 2FA, package name availability, maintainer access, etc.) rather than a single concern like npm_check_auth.

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?

Explicitly instructs to 'run before publishing ANY npm package', and explains the non-interactive context assumptions (no browsers, no OTP entry). It clarifies that 2FA issues are a hand-off to the human, and 'never suggests actions an agent cannot perform', providing clear when-to-use and behavioral boundaries.

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