eventarc_publish

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the default channel behavior and that the call reports recipient functions and per-call outcomes, but says nothing about side effects (this invokes real deployed functions), permission/auth requirements, whether delivery is synchronous, or what happens when no function subscribes.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the reporting behavior is appended where it belongs. The 'as getEventarc().channel().publish() does' clause is compact but slightly opaque to an agent without the SDK context.

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?

Seven parameters are all documented in the schema, and although there is no output schema, the description covers what comes back (which functions received it, how each call ended). What is missing is failure/edge-case behavior — no subscribers, invalid type, channel not found.

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 100%, including the channel default and the data/text alternative, so the schema does the parameter work. The description adds no extra meaning about precedence between data and text or about attribute merging beyond what the property descriptions already state.

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 and resource — 'Publish a custom CloudEvent to an Eventarc channel' — plus the default channel target. It does not explicitly name pubsub_publish or eventarc_replay_event as the alternatives, so an agent must infer the distinction from the resource noun alone.

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?

Usage is implied (emit an event so functions receive it, useful for testing delivery) but never stated as when-to-use or when-not-to-use. Given siblings pubsub_publish, functions_invoke, and eventarc_replay_event all send or re-trigger events, the absence of routing guidance is a real gap.

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