Preview Mogrt Library Publish

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond those: no-overwrite semantics, the requirement that the library root already exist, and the explicit guarantee that no file or directory is created. This is exactly the kind of contextual transparency that helps an agent avoid side effects.

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?

Two concise, information-dense sentences. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the critical constraint about not creating files is stated immediately. Every clause adds value; there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

The tool has a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile fully covered by annotations, all four parameters are documented with 100% schema coverage, and an output schema exists so return-value documentation is unnecessary. The description adds the essential preconditions and side-effect guarantees, making the definition complete for correct invocation.

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 parameters are already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds some contextual nuance (e.g., the library root must already exist, no overwrite) but does not significantly extend parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Preview'), a specific resource ('a no-overwrite publish of a validated MOGRT'), and the target scope ('workspace-contained, versioned local library'). It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling publish_mogrt_to_library by emphasizing that nothing is created.

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 is a preview operation, not an actual publish, and it requires the library root to already exist. It implies use before a real publish and when non-destructive validation is needed, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions.

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