investec_card_publish_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description indicates a mutation (publishing draft to active), but does not mention if it is destructive, reversible, requires authorization, or what happens to the draft after publishing. This is a significant gap for a mutation 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?

The description is a single, clear sentence with no redundant information. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easy for an agent to understand the tool's function quickly.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description provides a minimal understanding of its purpose. However, it lacks behavioral transparency and usage guidelines, which are important for an agent to safely invoke the tool. It is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter cardKey, which is described as 'The unique key identifying the card' in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning or context for the parameter, so it meets the baseline for high coverage without extra value.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to publish a draft code block for a card, making it active for transactions. It uses a specific verb ('publish') and resource ('draft code block for a card'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like investec_card_update_code and investec_card_execute_code.

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 implies the tool is used when a draft code block is ready to be activated, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., investec_card_update_code for editing drafts, investec_card_execute_code for executing code). No prerequisites or context on when not to use are provided.

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