publish_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the permission model (project owner/admin or super_admin), which is real context beyond the schema, but says nothing about deploy side effects, async behavior, whether an existing deployment is replaced, or failure modes for a mutating tool.

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?

Two very short sentences with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than pure economy.

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 three-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the what and the who but omits the deploy semantics an agent would want (what state the project enters, what happens on re-publish, error conditions). Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 100%, so slug, githubRepo, and branch (with its default of main) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no format or constraint detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 compound action: connect a GitHub repository and trigger a deploy, on a project identified by slug. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like provision_project or deploy_status, though the description never names those alternatives to sharpen the boundary.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not guidance is given. The only conditional context is the authorization requirement ('Admin (dono) ou super_admin'), which tells the agent who may call it but not when it should be chosen over provision_project or deploy_status.

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