Publish to the model library

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

Annotations only declare the generic mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: a version is immutable ('never changes after'), what payload is carried over (model file, companion files, reference pictures, measurements, unit, box, brand, source link), and what notes and fidelity record. This is exactly the disclosure a mutation tool needs.

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 operation and its scoping are front-loaded, and the em-dash-aside efficiently enumerates the preserved payload. It is a single dense sentence, slightly overloaded, but nearly every clause earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers what gets published, immutability, and the notes/fidelity semantics. It stops short of stating prerequisites or how this relates to the sibling library/update tools.

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 all five parameters are already documented, including notes ('what changed') and fidelity ('what was estimated'). The description restates those meanings in prose without adding format, constraints, or defaults the schema lacks, so the 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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Publish to the asset library' — and the action=publish phrasing pins down the exact operation, so an agent knows this creates a new library version. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like library, update, or create, which publish-related work could plausibly route to.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance: nothing says to prefer this over update/create, nor what prerequisites (e.g. an existing piece id, a name collision policy) must hold. The trailing 'library lists them' is a behavioral note rather than routing guidance.

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