modrinth_create_version

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, so it's a write operation. The description adds context beyond annotations by emphasizing that it 'publishes public content' and requires explicit user consent, plus the existence prerequisite. It doesn't contradict annotations and provides extra safety-relevant context, though it could note that published content becomes publicly visible.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main action, followed by safety guidance and a prerequisite. No redundant details or fluff. Every sentence adds value: the first states the core action, the second sets usage boundaries, the third notes a prerequisite.

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 has 10 parameters, no output schema, and annotations that cover safety hints, the description provides a high-level overview and important context (explicit user consent, existing project). It doesn't explain return values (no output schema required), and all parameters are documented in the schema. The description is sufficient for an agent to understand when and how to invoke it.

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 the schema already documents all 10 parameters with descriptions and examples (e.g., dependencies example). The description adds minimal extra meaning by referencing 'uploading jar files' (file_paths) and 'existing project' (project_id), but it doesn't compensate beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high coverage.

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 action: 'Publish a NEW version to an existing Modrinth project by uploading one or more built jar files.' It uses a specific verb ('publish') and resource ('version to existing project'), distinguishing it from siblings like modrinth_modify_version (modify) and modrinth_create_project (create project). It also scopes it to existing projects, which is clear.

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 provides explicit usage conditions: 'only call it when the user has explicitly asked to publish' and 'The project must already exist on Modrinth.' This gives clear when-to-use guidance and a prerequisite, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools for other operations (e.g., modify). It implies when not to use it but lacks direct sibling comparison.

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