athena_prompt_publish

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does an excellent job: it reveals the fresh-fetch-before-push, non-force push constraint, ancestor requirement, and post-push verification. This goes beyond basic 'publish' wording. It doesn't mention failure behavior or permissions, but the core safety guarantees are transparent.

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 dense sentence with every clause contributing meaningful information (fresh-fetch, exact clean HEAD, non-force push, ancestor condition, post-push verification). No filler, no redundancy.

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?

For a git-publish operation with minimal schema and no annotations, the description covers the key behaviors and constraints well. It lacks parameter explanations and return-value info, but the core operation is thoroughly described. The missing 'remote' parameter explanation is a notable gap.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'HEAD' but never maps it to 'expected_git_head', and the optional 'remote' parameter is entirely absent from the description. The parameters are left to inference, which is inadequate given no schema descriptions.

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 resource ('local prompt-brain HEAD') and method ('ordinary non-force push'), plus precise conditions (ancestor check, post-push equality verification). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling prompt tools like athena_prompt_sync or athena_prompt_promote.

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 specifying safety constraints (only push when remote is ancestor, verify after push), but it never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. No sibling tools are named as alternatives.

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