Run a publisher set

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the mutation risk is communicated. The description adds the detail that this fires a publisher set by name, but does not mention side effects such as file generation or external publication. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 and is appropriately front-loaded. The parenthetical '(Tapir)' adds a potentially useful API hint but is unexplained and may confuse agents unfamiliar with that term.

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?

While an output schema exists, so return format need not be explained, the description leaves important operational context uncovered: no side-effect disclosure beyond the destructive annotation, no usage guidance, and no explanation of the port parameter. For a destructive action with two parameters, this is insufficient.

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 compensate. It clarifies that publisher_set_name identifies the publisher set, but it says nothing about the port parameter, its default, or its role. One of the two parameters remains effectively undocumented.

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 verb ('fire') and a specific resource ('Archicad publisher set'), and identifies how the set is selected ('by name'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_rule or execute_write_api_command, which operate on different resources.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. An agent cannot infer from the description why publish would be preferred over run_rule or other action-oriented tools.

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