publish_data_product

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only mentions it's a publishing wizard but doesn't disclose key behaviors: whether it requires an existing Atlas typedef (given sibling ensure_data_marketplace_typedef exists), whether it mutates Atlas state, whether it overwrites existing products, or what happens on duplicate product_id. For a registration/publishing tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 sentence, which is efficient. However, it is written in German while function names and sibling tools are in English, which may create consistency issues. Every word earns its place, but the content is thin—it conveys purpose but nothing else.

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?

Given 16 parameters, 9 required, zero schema description coverage, no annotations, and no description of behavior, this description is inadequate for the tool's complexity. It doesn't explain key concepts like what a 'wizard' implies, prerequisites (Atlas typedef), or the relationship to sync_data_product_to_atlas. The output schema exists but can't compensate for missing guidance on semantic field meanings and prerequisites.

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%, meaning the schema has no descriptions for any of the 16 parameters. However, the parameter titles are mostly self-explanatory (name, domain, owner_team, region, business_name, technical_name, product_id). The description adds very little beyond what the schema titles already convey. The tool could benefit from explaining ambiguous fields like atlas_type, atlas_qualified_name, and data_contract_qualified_name, but doesn't.

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 says 'Neues Datenprodukt registrieren (Data Publishing Wizard für Data Owner)' which translates to registering a new data product. It clearly identifies the verb (register/publish) and resource (data product). However, given the tool name 'publish_data_product' and 16 parameters, this adds moderate clarity but doesn't distinguish from siblings like sync_data_product_to_atlas or certify_data_product, and the German language may obscure intent for non-German-speaking agents.

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 tells the user it's a Data Publishing Wizard for Data Owners, which implies context. But it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs assert_data_product_to_atlas or certify_data_product. No explicit when/when-not guidance or exclusion criteria such as 'use sync_data_product_to_atlas to update an existing product'.

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