publish_review_version_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the artifact location and the non-obvious side effect that comments created while a version is active stamp review_version_id, but it does not state whether publishing overwrites an existing version, can be undone, or requires a rendered mix to exist.

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 compact and front-loaded: the core freeze action appears first, followed by one useful side effect and the parameter clarification. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant restatement of schema fields.

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?

The description is enough for a basic call with project_path and label, but it leaves behavioral gaps such as label uniqueness, overwrite semantics, and interaction with set_active_review_version_tool. The presence of an output schema reduces the need for return-value documentation, but the no-annotation context demands more disclosure.

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%, and the description only elaborates the 'prefer' parameter with 'premix' (default) versus 'mastered'. The other parameters (label, set_active, project_path) rely on name inference, though the comment-stamping sentence hints at the effect of set_active.

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?

States a concrete verb ('Freeze') and resource ('current premix/mastered mix as a review version'), plus the destination path 'artifacts/review/'. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_review_versions_tool and set_active_review_version_tool.

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 primary sentence implies use when a review snapshot is needed, but no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance is given. It does not name alternatives or explain when to prefer set_active_review_version_tool instead.

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