airstrings_publish

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

Annotations already flag destructive=true, openWorld=true and idempotent=false, and the description adds material context beyond them: every call creates a new bundle revision that replaces the live one, there is no automatic rollback (manual undo via republishing old values), production environments are refused, and signing occurs before CDN upload. This is exactly the behavioral detail an agent needs before mutating live traffic.

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 tightly packed sentences, front-loaded with the what, then prerequisites, then the undo/rollback story, then the production restriction and return payload. No sentence is redundant; each carries a distinct operational fact.

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?

Covers what the tool does, prerequisites, irreversibility and rollback, environment restrictions, and even the return payload (per-locale status and published_at) despite there being no output schema. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% for the single 'locales' parameter, so the schema already explains the comma-separated format and the omit-to-publish-all behavior. The description adds nothing about the parameter, which is acceptable but not value-adding; 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 precise verb and resource ('Make the active environment's current server strings live') and enumerates the mechanism: builds per-locale bundles, Ed25519-signs them, uploads to the CDN. It also implicitly separates this from airstrings_push and airstrings_promote_preview by describing what publishing actually does.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('run airstrings_push first for local edits'), how to undo ('set the old values and publish again'), and when this tool is the wrong choice ('Refused on a protected environment (production): publish to staging, then use airstrings_promote_preview and hand the apply_url to a human'). Names the alternative sibling and the condition that selects it.

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