publish_datasource

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should cover behavioral traits. It mentions creation/overwrites and 'transparent chunking' but lacks details on idempotency, conflict resolution, or response behavior.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the core action, and the second provides a helpful comparison and references relevant rules.

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 references RF7 and chunking but does not explain them, assuming knowledge of publish_workbook. It does not mention the output schema or any prerequisites, leaving gaps for a complete understanding.

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% with basic descriptions. The description adds context by tying parameters to the publish concept, specifying file types (.tds/.tdsx), and referencing explicit overwrite (RF7), providing extra meaning beyond 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'publica' (publishes) and the resource 'fonte de dados' (data source). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'publish_workbook' by specifying it handles .tds/.tdsx files.

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 explicitly contrasts with publish_workbook, providing an alternative for data source publishing. However, it does not elaborate on when not to use it or prerequisites beyond file type.

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