Publish Workspace

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that creating a version consumes the workspace, that publish=true releases immediately to all visitors, that compile failures are never published, and that publish defaults to false. These are critical side-effect and risk disclosures that go beyond typical descriptions.

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 three short paragraphs, front-loaded with the primary action and then focusing on the crucial publish behavior. Every sentence contributes useful information—purpose, flow context, and a clear warning. No fluff or redundancy.

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 that an output schema exists (though not shown here), the description doesn't need to detail return values. It covers the release flow, publish implications, workspace consumption, and compile-failure handling. It could mention prerequisites or permissions, but for a release tool with significant side effects, it provides sufficient context for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for every parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains the publish parameter's real-world impact (immediate release, confirmation needed) and clarifies that workspace consumption happens regardless of publish. This adds value beyond the schema's 'Publish the version to production once created.'

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 action: 'Create a container version from a workspace, optionally publishing it.' It identifies the resource (workspace) and the resulting version, and notes the optional publish step. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools like create_version or publish_version, so an agent must infer the difference from the combined behavior rather than being directly told.

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 explains the release flow and warns about the publish flag, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over create_version or publish_version. The 'Tag Manager release flow' is implied context, yet no direct alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving some inference required.

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