pubsub_publish

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses encoding behavior — strings pass through as-is, other JSON is sent as text and base64-encoded on the wire — but says nothing about failure modes, whether the emulator must be running, ordering-key semantics, or what a successful publish returns.

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 compact sentence with the core action front-loaded and the encoding caveat attached via a colon. Dense but readable, with no filler; slightly crowded by stacking three ideas into one clause.

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 four-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the data-encoding nuance but omits operational context an agent needs: emulator availability, ordering-key behavior, and result/error shape.

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 the baseline is 3. The description does add real meaning for the 'data' parameter (how non-string JSON is serialized and base64-encoded on the wire), but leaves 'attributes' and 'orderingKey' entirely to the schema's one-line 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Publish a message to a Pub/Sub emulator topic'), which distinguishes it from eventarc_publish and pubsub_peek by naming the Pub/Sub emulator target. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with the sibling publish tool, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance beyond the implied 'you want to publish a Pub/Sub message'. Nothing tells the agent when to prefer this over eventarc_publish, how to discover a topic name (e.g. via pubsub_list_topics), or any prerequisites such as the emulator being active.

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