publish_business_agent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full safety/disclosure burden. It does disclose the core behavior — a mutation that transitions a draft to a live state — and adds a prerequisite-style cue about previewing. However, it omits whether publishing is reversible, what side effects a live agent has, and what a successful publish returns, leaving meaningful gaps for a state-changing operation.

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 short sentences with no filler; the primary action is front-loaded first and the second sentence earns its place by adding workflow guidance. This is appropriately sized for a simple two-parameter tool.

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 low-complexity tool (2 params, no output schema, no nested objects) the purpose is adequately stated. But as a mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, it would be improved by noting the return/confirmation behavior and whether a preview is a hard prerequisite, so completeness is only borderline adequate.

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 only 50% and the description contributes zero parameter meaning. business_agent_id is documented in the schema, but ad_account_id has no schema description and the description does not clarify its purpose or whether it is needed for publishing, so the gap the description should have compensated for remains open.

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+resource: publish a Business Agent draft to make it live, and clearly marks the state transition from draft to live. This differentiates it implicitly from create/update/list business-agent siblings, though it never names an alternative or exclusion explicitly, so it does not earn the top score.

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 draft-to-live framing gives clear context for when to call this tool — after a draft exists and the user wants it public. The instruction to 'Ensure preview looks good first' is concrete pre-publish guidance that implicitly points to preview_business_agent, but no alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions are stated explicitly.

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