Publish a publisher set

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the run can take minutes and Archicad is busy meanwhile, plus the exact return shape ({published, outputFolder, files, durationSeconds}). The listed formats (PDF, DWG, DXF, IFC, BIMx) also clarify what the operation produces.

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?

Dense and front-loaded, leading with the core action and following with the prerequisite, parameter caveats, and return shape in that order. It is longer than a minimal definition but nearly every clause carries information; the parenthetical format list is the only slightly expendable part.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the return structure and a duration/warning note. Combined with full parameter coverage and clear routing to the sibling that enumerates sets, an agent has everything needed to invoke 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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented, but the description still adds value: it warns that set names are localized (with a concrete example) and clarifies that 'items' are publisher item navigator guids obtained from get_publisher_sets {name}. That sourcing detail is not in the schema.

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 specific verb+resource ('Runs File > Publish for one publisher set') and distinguishes itself from the sibling get_publisher_sets, which it explicitly names as the way to enumerate sets. An agent can identify the operation and its scope without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear context: list sets with get_publisher_sets first, names are localized, outputPath overrides the set's folder, and 'items' narrows the run to specific navigator guids. It does not state exclusions or when not to use it, so it stops just short of a 5.

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