Publish Setup Part

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

Goes well beyond the bare readOnlyHint=false annotation: it discloses that each publish creates a new version of the team plugin that members accept at their next update, that instructions alone does not version, that an admin role is required, and that the server validates links, binaries and oversized files before sending anything. Those are exactly the side effects and preconditions an agent needs before committing to a write.

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?

One dense paragraph, front-loaded with the verb and the part enumeration, then prerequisites, then parameter guidance — each sentence carries information. It is long for a single block and could be split into bullets for scannability, but there is no filler.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, part enumeration, permissions, versioning side effects, validation behavior and directory/file selection. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it explains what `directory` should point at for each part and frames `files` as a fallback only ('Only when there is no folder to read') rather than an equal option. That prevents the most likely misuse of the schema, though it does not elaborate on file size limits or path normalization beyond what the schema already states.

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 and resource ('Publish one part of your team's Claude Code setup to SystemDox') and enumerates exactly which parts exist and what files each maps to (hooks/hooks.json, .mcp.json, agents/*.md, commands/*.md, CLAUDE.md). This distinguishes it clearly from the sibling publish_skill and from all the get_* readers.

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?

Gives a clear rule for choosing between the two input paths — pass `directory` when the folder is on this computer and never retype files into `files` — plus the admin-role prerequisite for four of the five parts. It does not reference the sibling publish_skill or explain when to publish a part versus create artifacts another way, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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