Publish Version

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and handles it well: it discloses immediate live-site impact, no staged rollout, and the only rollback path. This is material behavioral context beyond what the schema provides. It does not discuss auth or rate limits, but the core side effects are clearly surfaced.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler: core action first, then immediate-consequence warning, then rollback note and confirmation guidance. Every sentence 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?

Given the output schema exists and all parameters are documented, the description covers the critical action and its irreversible consequences. It could be slightly stronger with an explicit pointer to a verification tool or sibling alternative, but it is otherwise complete for a high-stakes publish operation.

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 schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond implying that version_id is the intended version to publish. 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Publish a container version to production.' This clearly identifies the operation and its scope. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like set_latest_version or publish_workspace, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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 implies use when intentionally pushing a version live, and strongly implies not calling unless certain ('Confirm the version is the intended one before calling'). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool versus sibling publish-related tools.

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