betadrop_publish

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the high-level 'publish' action without describing side effects, authentication needs, whether existing builds are replaced, or what the response looks like. This is similar to the 'update_drive' calibration example.

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, front-loaded with the action verb and resource, and contains no filler. It is as concise as possible while conveying the core operation.

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 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It does not explain the workflow around publishing, including authentication, upload progress, return values, or how this step fits with sibling tools like betadrop_upload_status. The schema handles parameters but not operational context.

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 100%: every parameter, including the expiryType enum and conditional expiry limit fields, already has a descriptive schema entry. The tool description adds nothing beyond restating the .ipa/.apk types that filePath already documents, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('publish') with a clear resource ('an iOS (.ipa) or Android (.apk) build') and target platform ('to BetaDrop'). This makes the tool's action distinct from siblings like list_builds, token management, or upload_status.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no mention of prerequisites like being logged in, and no indication of how this relates to betadrop_upload_status or betadrop_list_builds. Intended usage is only implied by the name and basic sentence.

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