Publish to App Repository

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

The description explicitly states this is a MUTATIVE, LONG-RUNNING operation that blocks until publishing completes or times out (default: 30 minutes). This adds significant context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true), including blocking behavior and configurable timeout, which is highly valuable for an agent.

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 and well-structured, with the core action in the first sentence, followed by critical behavioral warnings, then the benefit, and finally a helpful prerequisite pointer. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff, and it is front-loaded with the most important information.

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 the tool's complexity (long-running, mutative, 6 parameters) and absence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, behavioral implications, blocking/timeout, and prerequisite. It does not mention what the return value or response looks like on success/failure, which would be useful for an agent but does not undermine overall 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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for all six parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by advising to use list_company_apps or lookup_app to find the required scope and sys_id, giving practical guidance on how to obtain parameter values. This added value warrants a 4.

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 tool publishes an application to the company's ServiceNow application repository using the CI/CD API, and explains the effect: making the application version available for installation. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like install_from_app_repo.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (publishing an app to the company repo) and gives a concrete prerequisite: use list_company_apps or lookup_app to find scope and sys_id. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it, slightly missing the top tier.

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