Publish a project

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

Annotations only cover read-only/destructive hints. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the operation costs money or quota and requires user confirmation. This is valuable side-effect disclosure that the annotations do not convey.

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 two sentences with zero filler. The first sentence states the core action; the second adds the essential cost warning. Both sentences earn their place and are front-loaded.

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 mutating publish operation with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description provides the essential context: the action, the role, and the cost-related confirmation requirement. Parameter details are fully covered by the schema, so the description is sufficiently complete, though it doesn't describe the response or post-publish behavior.

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 all 7 parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Publishes'), resource ('a new project'), and role ('as an employer'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like update_project or project_action, which operate on existing projects.

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: this tool is for publishing a new project on behalf of an employer. It also includes a critical usage caution—confirm with the user because it costs money or quota—but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it falls short of a 5.

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