noetic.publish

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the three visibility states, the owner-governed permission model, and the default behavior, which goes beyond what the bare schema offers. It does not mention side effects on existing grants or return behavior, but for a simple visibility-setting operation this is reasonably transparent.

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 efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then packs the essential details into a compact list. Every clause earns its place, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 low-complexity visibility-setting tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core semantics, authorization context, and defaults. The main missing piece is a clear account of the sessionId parameter and what happens after the operation, but the tool is simple enough that the current description is nearly complete.

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. It does explain the 'visibility' parameter by enumerating public, unlisted, and private with their behavioral meanings, and 'space' is inferable from context. However, 'sessionId' is completely unexplained, and no required/optional relationship is specified, so the compensation is partial.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Set a space's discovery visibility,' then defines exactly what each visibility value means. It also distinguishes itself from related concepts like noetic.discover by clarifying what 'public' means in that registry, and from access-control tools by explaining 'private (owner + grantees only).'

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 gives clear context for when the tool is appropriate: it controls discovery visibility, is owner-governed, and defaults to public. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the owner-governed constraint and the visibility semantics provide enough situational guidance for an agent.

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