publish_gene

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares the default destination, that invoking equals explicit publish consent, the V(g) security gate with a Grade >= B threshold, and default-off flags for Arena submission and security checks. It doesn't describe failure/rollback behavior or the response, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and destination, then prerequisites, then constraints. Every sentence carries information; it is dense but not padded, at roughly three sentences for a tool with many behaviors to disclose.

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 7-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers auth, consent, validation, upload, and optional submission. Missing only return-value/error expectations and rollback implications, which are secondary for an agent deciding whether to invoke it.

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 7 parameters. The description restates the gene_name/all=true mutual requirement and adds the Grade >= B context around security, but adds little syntax or meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 Gene to Rotifer Cloud Registry') and enumerates the actual steps: validation, upload, optional Arena submission. An agent can distinguish it from nearby siblings like arena_submit, vg_scan, or install_gene.

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?

Provides prerequisites ('Requires authentication (use login tool first)') and an input precondition ('Either gene_name or all=true must be provided'). It does not explicitly contrast itself with arena_submit, though the optional-submission phrasing implies the relationship.

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