publish_changeset

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

Annotations indicate this is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false), but the description adds the prerequisite that SCRIPTING_ENABLED must be true, which is useful context. It also mentions the output format 'XML for deployment', providing some behavioral detail beyond the annotations, though it does not describe side effects or return behavior.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Publish/export an update set to XML for deployment') and includes the prerequisite. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary detail.

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 simple tool with one parameter, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: purpose, output format (XML), and a system requirement. It does not describe return structure, but given the simplicity and annotations, it is reasonably complete.

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 already provides 100% coverage for the single required parameter (sys_id) with a clear description. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or syntax for parameters, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 function: 'Publish/export an update set to XML for deployment.' This is a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from update set management tools like list_update_sets or switch_update_set. However, it does not differentiate from the similarly named 'export_update_set' sibling, so it lacks explicit sibling distinction.

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 description provides context that the tool is for deployment and includes a prerequisite ('requires SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true'), which gives some usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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