edgegate_publish_promptpack

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two non-obvious behavioral traits: requires admin role on the workspace, and the operation is idempotent. It does not describe the return format, potential errors, or side effects on existing versions, but the disclosed traits add significant safety and permission awareness for the agent.

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 three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and purpose. The following sentences add crucial behavioral context (lifecycle, permissions, idempotency) without repetition or filler. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is easy to scan.

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 moderate-complexity publish operation with no output schema, the description covers the 'why' (pipelines), the 'when' (after create), prerequisites (admin role), and an important property (idempotent). It does not describe return output or error cases, but given the simplicity and the fact that the schema already defines required parameters, this is reasonably complete. A small gap is not explaining what happens if the version already exists or is already published, but idempotency implies safety.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it provides no parameter-level explanations. While the names 'workspace_id', 'promptpack_id', and 'version' are somewhat self-explanatory, the description does not clarify what 'version' means (e.g., a semantic version shorthand, an existing version to publish) or provide any additional semantic context beyond the schema's pattern regex. This leaves the agent with only structural validation, not semantic understanding.

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 action ('Publish a promptpack version'), the target resource ('in an EdgeGate workspace'), and the intended outcome ('so it can be referenced in pipelines'). It also distinguishes itself from similar tools by explicitly naming the predecessor (edgegate_create_promptpack) and the lifecycle, making it distinct from sibling publish tools like edgegate_publish_eval_set.

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 provides clear when-to-use guidance by explaining the create → publish → use lifecycle and explicitly instructing to call this after edgegate_create_promptpack. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool references, but the lifecycle context is strong. Because it names the sequential dependency and purpose, this is better than a generic 'use to publish' but not exhaustive enough for a 5.

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