publishRepoAnnouncement

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the signing requirement, which is useful, but it does not disclose side effects, mutation nature, or what the published announcement entails beyond the kind. This is insufficient for a publishing 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 sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, and the 'REQUIRES signing' addendum is essential. It is concise with no filler, ideal for a tool with minimal metadata.

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 the tool's 9 parameters, 4 required ones, no output schema, and no annotations, this one-sentence description is severely incomplete. It lacks information about expected behavior, return values, side effects, or interaction with other tools like syncRepoPushPolicy, leaving the agent without enough context to use it correctly.

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 only 33%, and the description adds no parameter meaning. It does not explain what parameters like repoId, name, relays, or web are for, nor how they relate to the publication. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 states the action ('Publish repository to Nostr') and specifies the event kind (30617), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like publishRepoState or publishSoftwareAnnounce by explicitly referencing the repository announcement kind.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as publishRepoState or publishSoftwareAnnounce. The only contextual note is 'REQUIRES signing', which is a prerequisite rather than a usage scenario or exclusion.

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