publish_changeset

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

Annotations indicate destructive hint true, so agent knows it's a mutation. The description adds important behavioral context: the requirement of a system property, which is not in annotations. No contradictions with annotations.

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 a single sentence with 15 words, no unnecessary information. It is front-loaded with the action and includes the critical prerequisite.

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 single-parameter tool with annotations, the description covers the main action and a key requirement. However, since there is no output schema, describing the return value (e.g., XML payload) would improve completeness. The mention of 'to XML' partially addresses this.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides (sys_id is system ID of update set).

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/export' and the resource 'update set', with output format 'XML'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'commit_changeset' and 'export_update_set' by mentioning the system requirement, but the presence of a separate 'export_update_set' tool could cause confusion.

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 a usage condition ('requires SCRIPTING_ENABLED=true'), which helps the agent know prerequisites. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like 'commit_changeset' or 'export_update_set'.

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