Publish to App Repository

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It correctly identifies the tool as mutative and long-running with a configurable timeout (default 30 minutes). It does not disclose authorization requirements, rollback behavior, or specific errors on failure, but the core behavioral traits are adequately conveyed.

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 concise with two short paragraphs. The first sentence defines the action, the second explains behavioral traits, and the third offers usage guidance. No unnecessary words, though it could be structured with bullet points for easier scanning.

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?

The description lacks information on the output/return value of the operation. Since there is no output schema, the description should explain what the agent receives upon completion (e.g., publishing result, new version sys_id). It also does not mention potential side effects or failure states, leaving gaps in completeness.

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 coverage is 100% with all 6 parameters described. The description adds marginal value by noting the default timeout and fallback behavior for the instance parameter. However, it does not add significant meaning beyond the schema, so 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'publish' and the resource 'application to the company's ServiceNow application repository'. It explicitly mentions it is a mutative, long-running operation and hints at differentiating from siblings like 'install_from_app_repo' by advising to use 'list_company_apps' or 'lookup_app' to gather prerequisites.

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 provides explicit prerequisites (use list_company_apps or lookup_app to find scope and sys_id). It explains the purpose is to make the app version available for installation on other instances, which gives context for when to use this tool. However, it does not mention alternative tools for other scenarios (e.g., installing vs. publishing).

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