edgegate_publish_eval_set

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the behavior: it performs validation, freezes the version (immutability), signs and hash-anchors it, returns artifacts on success, and returns violations on failure with a floor requirement. It also states workspace write access is required. This covers side effects, failure modes, and auth needs.

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 compact (three sentences) and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Each sentence adds value: the first defines the action, the second gives success output and downstream usage, the third explains failure behavior and requirements. No filler.

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?

Despite lacking annotations and an output schema, the description covers the critical aspects: purpose, success/failure behavior, validation thresholds, and required permissions. It also implicitly indicates the workflow position by mentioning feed into a Behavioral-Gate run. This is sufficient for a tool with three straightforward UUID parameters.

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?

The input schema has three UUID parameters with no descriptions, and the description does not explain their meanings. Although the names are self-explanatory (workspace_id, eval_set_id, version_id), the description provides no additional semantic context to compensate for the 0% schema coverage, so it adds minimal value 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 a specific action ('Validate and freeze a draft eval-set version into an immutable, signed, hash-anchored version'), identifies the resource (draft eval-set version), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_eval_set or new_eval_set_version by focusing on the finalization step. It also specifies success and failure outcomes, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 in the workflow: after drafting an eval set, publish to get eval_set_sha256 + artifact_id for a Behavioral-Gate run. It mentions validation failure keeps version a draft. However, it doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it's clear context without direct exclusions.

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