publish

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action and fails to mention potential side effects (e.g., generating output files), whether the operation is blocking, permission requirements, or reversibility. This lack of transparency is a notable gap for a mutation-like tool.

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 short sentence with no waste. It efficiently conveys the core action and resource. However, it is borderline under-specified, but conciseness itself is good.

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 that this tool has two parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is too minimal to be contextually complete. It lacks guidance on when to use, parameter semantics for 'port', and any note on side effects. The existence of an output schema partially compensates for return format understanding, but not enough.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only implies publisher_set_name by saying 'by name', but offers no explanation for the optional 'port' parameter. Without additional context, an agent cannot determine the purpose or acceptable values for 'port'.

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 identifies the tool's action ('Fire' = trigger) and resource ('Archicad publisher set by name'), making it distinguishable from sibling tools, none of which overlap with this specific publishing functionality. While 'Fire' is slightly informal, the resource and context make the purpose reasonably clear.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It simply states the action without contextualizing its role in a workflow or comparing it to other tools like execute_api_command or run_rule.

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