Stage approved publish batch

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

Annotations provide no safety hints (all false), so the description carries the burden. It adds a key constraint ('never plots or edits originals'), but does not disclose other potential side effects of staging (e.g., whether it writes files, is stateful, or requires downstream validation).

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 sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and includes the most important constraints (limit and non-destructive guarantee).

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 a rich schema and an output schema, the description is appropriately sized. It covers the batch limit and safety, but could benefit from a brief mention of the staging workflow (e.g., must be followed by validate_staged_job or queue_publish_batch). Overall sufficient for selection.

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 input schema already provides 100% description coverage, including path and plan_id constraints. The description adds only the batch limit (up to 20), which duplicates schema maxItems, and no additional parameter-specific meaning.

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?

Clearly identifies the action ('Stage') and the resource ('up to 20 explicit DWG/plan-ID approvals'). Distinguishes from siblings like stage_publish_job (singular) and queue_publish_batch (queueing) by focusing on batch approval staging.

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 implies the tool is for staging multiple approved plans before validation/queueing, but does not explicitly state when to use it over stage_publish_job or queue_publish_batch. It mentions 'explicit' approvals, which signals a prerequisite, but offers no alternative guidance.

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