aptly_publish_snapshot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the action 'publish' which implies a write operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like permissions needed, whether it's idempotent, what happens if the snapshot doesn't exist, or if it overwrites existing publications. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core action.

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 this is a mutation tool (publishing implies making changes available) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'available for apt' means operationally, what the publication results in, or any error conditions. For a 3-parameter tool with significant behavioral implications, more context is needed.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no examples of valid distribution names beyond those in schema, no clarification on prefix usage). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('publish') and resource ('snapshot') with the purpose 'to make it available for apt'. It distinguishes from siblings like aptly_create_snapshot (creation) and aptly_publish_repo (different resource), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from aptly_publish_repo which has a similar action on a different resource.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing snapshot), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like aptly_publish_repo. Usage context is implied but not stated.

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