Run a publisher set

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the write/destructive nature is covered by structured data. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by stating that an unknown set name is refused with the project's available sets on Tapir > 1.8.0, which helps an agent recover from a bad name. It omits what publishing actually does — where output goes, whether it overwrites files, and whether it blocks — which matters for a destructive operation.

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 with the action front-loaded and the version caveat second. Nothing is padded, though the extreme brevity leaves the destructive semantics and the second parameter unaddressed rather than merely concise.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no prose. But for a destructive, side-effect-producing tool with two completely undocumented parameters, the description should explain what the publish operation writes and what 'port' controls; neither is covered, leaving real gaps an agent cannot resolve from the schema.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden and does not. It only indirectly implies publisher_set_name must match an existing set name; the 'port' parameter is never mentioned anywhere, and the expected string format (exact name? case sensitivity? set path?) is left undefined.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource: firing an Archicad publisher set by name, with the Tapir add-on identified as the execution surface. It is clear enough to distinguish from generic write tools like execute_write_api_command, though it never says what publishing actually produces (files, PDFs, IFC).

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (does a project need to be open? must the set already exist?), and no mention of any alternative tool. The only conditional statement is a version-dependent error behavior, not usage guidance.

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