publish_run

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and the title notes the certification requirement, so the bar is lower. The description still adds a genuinely new behavioral trait beyond the structured fields: fail-closed behavior on missing/invalid certification. It does not elaborate on what 'destructive' means here (e.g., what prior published state is overwritten), which caps it below 5.

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 short sentences, purpose first, precondition second, with zero filler. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be described, and annotations cover safety/idempotency. The description covers purpose, precondition, and failure mode adequately for a two-parameter tool, though it leaves the destructive effect of publishing unstated.

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% for two required parameters, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that certification_id must reference a valid certification bound to the bundle, which adds real semantics for that parameter, but run_id is never explained and no format/typing detail is given.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (publish certified artifacts) and adds a scope qualifier (certified only). It is discernible from the sibling certify_run by framing this as the downstream publish step, but it never names or contrasts that sibling explicitly.

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 precondition 'without a valid certification bound to the bundle' implies the tool cannot be used until certify_run has produced a certification, which is useful gating context. However, it never explicitly says when to use this versus certify_run, generate_dbt_artifacts, or the other publishing-adjacent siblings, leaving the routing to inference.

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