publish_leaderboard

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the tool alters leaderboard visibility (publish or whitelist-only) and includes critical behavioral instructions (do not auto-select). It does not mention potential side effects like irreversibility or permission requirements, but the provided context is strong.

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 three sentences, each adding essential information: prerequisite, purpose, and a safety warning. It uses bold for emphasis and front-loads the requirement. No wasted words.

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 has two required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides complete context: what it does, prerequisites, how to resolve ambiguous IDs, and parameter meaning. It lacks only return value info, which is acceptable without an output 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 100%, so the schema already documents parameters. The description adds behavioral context (e.g., 'publish=true means public') but does not extend beyond schema definitions. The value is in the prerequisite and warning, which indirectly clarify usage of 'id' parameter.

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 a leaderboard or sets it to whitelist-only mode. It uses a specific verb ('Publish') and resource ('leaderboard'), but does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'create_leaderboard' or 'list_leaderboards'. However, the action is distinct enough.

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: 'An app MUST be selected first' and directs to 'get_current_app_info' if not. It also advises calling 'list_leaderboards' to clarify the ID and instructs to ask the user rather than auto-selecting. This is exemplary guidance for when and how to use the tool.

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