Apply a confirmed sanitized publication export

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it never uses the network, never signs content, never creates a PR, is atomic, and produces a deterministic submission. These are non-obvious side-effect disclosures that help an agent understand the tool's safety profile.

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 sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the important exclusions are stated compactly in the second sentence.

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?

With no output schema and no parameter descriptions, the tool needs richer context. The description omits the meaning of planDigest and operationId, the expected format of expectedTarget, prerequisites such as a prior plan/confirmation step, and what the return value indicates.

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 explain planDigest, operationId, and expectedTarget. It only loosely implies 'new target' for expectedTarget and mentions revalidating Local Published Release and asset bytes, but never maps these concepts to the actual parameters.

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 operation: revalidate the exact Local Published Release and selected asset bytes, then atomically create one deterministic sanitized submission at a new target. It also explicitly distinguishes this from PR creation, which is a key sibling differentiation.

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?

The title and description indicate this is the apply stage for a confirmed sanitized publication export, and the 'never creates a PR' clause signals when not to choose this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state a clear when-to-use versus when-not-to-use rule.

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