publish

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that authentication is required (token or api_key) and that the action makes a version live, implying a state change. It does not mention reversibility or side effects on previous versions, but the core behavior is transparent enough for a publish operation.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose. The opening sentence is immediately informative, followed by a short clarification, authentication note, and a cleanly formatted argument list. Every sentence contributes value, with no filler or repetition.

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 tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage flow, authentication, and all parameter semantics. Since an output schema exists, the absence of return-value details is acceptable. The description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in the intended write-then-publish workflow.

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 0%, but the description includes an 'Args' section that explains every parameter: project (ID or key), token (JWT), api_key (sk_live_...), version (empty for latest), and branch (default main). This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions and adds meaningful guidance beyond raw property names.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Publish a version of a Symbols project to the platform.' It further clarifies that this makes the specified version (or latest) the published/live version, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like save_to_project (which saves changes) and push (which likely pushes code). The purpose is unambiguous.

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 instructs to 'Call save_to_project first to save your changes, then publish to make them live,' providing a clear workflow context. It also states authentication requirements, but it does not explicitly enumerate when not to use this tool or compare to all siblings. Still, the guidance is sufficient for an agent to select it for publishing after saving.

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