Publish the agent

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers real substance: the publish-only semantics (it does not upload local edits), the confirm gate with dry-run fallback, transport-specific behavior (pac copilot publish vs the PvaPublish action with MSAL), and polling until publishedon changes. It omits auth/permission requirements and failure or reversibility behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Purpose and the key prerequisite are front-loaded in the first two clauses, and the implementation detail is compressed into one trailing sentence. It is dense but each clause carries information; no filler sentences.

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 10-parameter, zero-annotation, no-output-schema mutation tool, the description covers the workflow, the safety gate, the async/background caveat, and transport routing. It leaves auth prerequisites and post-publish verification (e.g. checking cs_status or cs_job_status) implicit, which is a modest gap rather than a critical one.

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 70%, so the schema already documents most parameters; the description still adds genuine meaning by explaining what the two enum values of 'via' actually do under the hood. It also reinforces the confirm parameter's effect, going slightly beyond the baseline 3 for a well-covered 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 and resource with scope: making the agent's current draft visible to real users on its channels. It also disambiguates from the nearest sibling by noting it publishes what is already in Copilot Studio and that local edits must go up via cs_push first, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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?

Gives a clear prerequisite (run cs_push before publishing), maps user phrasings ('go live', 'release it', 'make my changes live') to the tool, and flags that confirm: true is required. It does not, however, say when to prefer one transport over the other or when publishing is inappropriate (e.g. unreviewed drafts), so it stops short of explicit when-not guidance.

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