publish_model

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It mentions validation and optional certificate generation, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., file deletion, overwriting existing listings), error handling, permissions, or rate limits. This is a significant gap for an upload action.

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 structured with a clear first sentence and a bullet list for parameters. It is efficient without being overly verbose. Minor reduction could be made, but overall it is appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the action and parameter semantics adequately but misses return value information, error conditions, and post-publishing behavior. It is sufficient for basic understanding but not fully complete for an AI agent to anticipate outcomes.

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?

The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: examples for category, enumerated license values, purpose of tags ('discoverability'), and defaults for target_marketplaces and boolean flags. While schema coverage is 0%, the description compensates well, though it could clarify data types and constraints (e.g., file_path format, tags as array).

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 tool's purpose: 'Publish a 3D model to one or more marketplaces.' It specifies the key actions (validates, optionally generates certificate, uploads) and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_published_models' or 'browse_models' by focusing on the publishing action.

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 implies usage context by detailing the steps and optional features, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it provide prerequisites or exclusions. For example, it doesn't mention that the model must be ready or that 'list_published_models' might be used to verify the result.

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