Install publication

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond them: provider scopes, locks and credits apply, confirmation is mandatory before provider execution, and the submission is single-shot. It omits any statement of what state is created or whether the install can be undone.

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?

Three tight clauses with the endpoint front-loaded and no filler. It is compact and scannable, though the semicolon-joined fragment style pushes some meaning into implicit phrasing.

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 destructive, non-idempotent mutation with no output schema, the description covers credits/locks/confirmation but never describes what the install produces or how success or failure is surfaced. Adequate but leaves the agent guessing about the operation's material effect.

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 coverage is 67% and the description adds nothing on uid or account, leaving the regex-constrained uid undocumented. Its only parameter-adjacent content is the mandatory-confirmation note, which loosely reinforces the existing confirm schema description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource (install a publication) and pins it to the endpoint POST /v5/publications/{uid}/install, so the agent knows exactly which operation is invoked. It does not differentiate from siblings or explain what 'installing' a publication actually does operationally, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

It gives procedural constraints ('mandatory confirmation before provider execution; one submission only') but never says when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_publication or list_publications, nor what preconditions make an install valid. No when-not guidance at all.

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