publish_repo_discovery

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about permissions required, whether publishing is idempotent or append-only, what happens on duplicate publishes, or what the call returns. The only behavioral hint is the target path, which indicates where content lands.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. It is efficient, though efficiency here partly reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and four undocumented parameters, so the description should be doing far more work than it is. An agent cannot confidently determine argument formats, side effects, or failure modes.

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% for four parameters (repo, from, body, project), and the description only partially implies 'repo' via the path template. 'from', 'body', and 'project' have no meaning attached anywhere, so an agent must guess their formats and roles.

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 (Publish) and resource (a discovery bus item) and even names the target path, which tells an agent this writes into a repo-scoped discovery bus. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like publish_bus_item or publish_repo_escalation, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus publish_bus_item, publish_repo_escalation, or promote_repo_learning, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The destination path implies a scope but gives no routing guidance.

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