inkbolt_session_publish

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: create-only semantics, no undo step, exact-head revision checks, receipt retry returning the original result even after the session advances/disappears, and a Windows-only durable backend constraint. It aligns with idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false; only the lack of auth/permission context keeps it from 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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core publish action, then the receipt recovery semantics, then the platform caveat. Dense technical vocabulary but no wasted filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be documented here, and the description covers the distinctive write/retry/platform behavior well. Minor incompleteness on the report/output parameter shape is largely handled by the schema.

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 43%, so the description should carry more weight. It clarifies receipt:{receipt_root,request_id} and the expected-revision capture, which adds real meaning, but leaves output, control, session_id, and session_root unaddressed, so the coverage gap is only partly compensated.

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 its document or artboard create-only without adding an undo step.' This is clear and somewhat differentiating from siblings like inkbolt_session_apply, though it does not explicitly name an alternative. An agent can tell it publishes prepared output rather than editing the session.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over inkbolt_session_apply, inkbolt_session_apply_proposal, or inkbolt_session_dry_run. The receipt sentence describes a conditional behavior but not the overall when-to-use decision, leaving routing to inference.

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