publish_interface

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does substantial work: it discloses persistence ('Persists in the component's .FCStd as a JSON property bag') and that extra frame keys are stored verbatim. It also names the return shape. It omits whether authoring an interface conflicts with an existing one or needs specific permissions, but the side-effect profile is well communicated.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose in the first sentence, then scannable per-parameter bullet notes, then persistence/return. Every sentence earns its place for a 3-param, zero-coverage tool, though the prose is slightly loose rather than tightly compressed.

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 3-required-param tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema descriptions, the description covers parameters, persistence semantics, cross-tool consumption, and the explicit return value. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: handle is defined ('the component's shaped object'), name is given with concrete examples, and frame is fully specified with its structure, defaults (z_axis +Z, x_axis +X) and verbatim-extra-keys behavior. This adds meaning far beyond the empty 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?

States a specific verb (Record) and resource (a named interface frame on a component) plus the downstream purpose (so other parts can mate to it). The 'here is where you bolt to me, and how it is oriented' framing makes it clearly distinct from siblings like get_interface and merge_assembly.

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?

It gives clear context by tying the action to its consumer: 'so merge_assembly can mate against it later.' That tells the agent when this output is consumed, but there are no explicit when-not conditions or named alternative tools for related tasks (get_interface, interface_align_check, register_handle are all siblings).

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