tokportal_publish_bundle

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

Despite annotations providing readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, the description goes well beyond by explaining key behavioral traits: the coverage renewal mechanism, what happens if Coverage cannot renew ('no task or media mutation starts'), and the requirement for the bundle to be fully configured. This is critical side-effect disclosure 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 concise at 3 sentences, front-loading the main action. However, the last two sentences are somewhat dense and could be restructured for clarity. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 no output schema and moderate complexity, the description covers the key execution requirements and failure behavior. It does not explain the return or error structure, but for a publish action this is acceptable. Slightly more detail on what 'published' means or what triggers success/failure could improve completeness, but it is adequate.

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 both parameters adequately. The description implies that the bundle must already be fully configured (which relates to the 'id' parameter meaning a pre-configured bundle), but does not add explicit parameter-level detail beyond the schema. A slight additional mention of parameter purpose or constraints would boost to 5, but baseline is 3 and the description adds some contextual framing.

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 'Publish a bundle' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like tokportal_create_bundle (which creates but does not publish) and tokportal_unpublish_bundle (the inverse operation), making the action unmistakable.

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 when-to-use guidance by detailing conditions for execution: the bundle must be fully configured, the resolved account must have active TokPortal Coverage or be permanently grandfathered, and it explains behavior around renewal and Coverage failure. This helps the agent decide when this tool is appropriate vs. alternatives like tokportal_get_bundle_publish_readiness for checking readiness first.

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