Preview Publish Impact

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

The description aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation and adds valuable behavioral context: the tool is a pre-publication analysis, it reports impact at various severities, it indicates whether acknowledgment is needed, and it requires project context. It does not mention rate limits or auth details, but for a read-only preview the annotation plus this context is sufficient.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the core behavior first, then gives the usage trigger and prerequisite. Every phrase earns its place: 'how many are affected', 'at which severity', 'whether the impact has to be acknowledged', and 'requires project context'.

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 read-only analysis tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns, when to invoke it, and what context is needed. The mention of dependent-project impact, severity, acknowledgment, and the promote_version dependency gives an agent enough to call it correctly without additional schema or annotations.

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%, with both parameters already documented as public GUIDs for the spec and the version to analyze. The description adds no new parameter-level detail beyond framing them as 'this version' and dependent projects, so the schema carries the semantic burden as expected.

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 states a clear action ('Check what publishing or promoting this version would do') and a specific resource ('dependent projects'), then details the kind of information returned: affected count, severity, and acknowledgment requirement. This distinguishes the tool from generic list/get tools and makes its purpose immediately obvious.

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 explicitly says when to use the tool: 'Run this before promote_version when the version carries breaking changes.' It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives, but the trigger condition and ordering are concrete enough to route an agent correctly.

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