Выпустить новую версию

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: existing installed copies of other users are not changed and only receive an update-available marker. It also discloses that the operation will be refused if the graph has not changed, which is valuable non-obvious behavior.

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 compact, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds useful information about effects or constraints. There is no redundancy or filler.

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 mutating tool with no output schema, the description covers the main outcome, side effects on installed copies, and a key failure condition. It could add explicit prerequisites or return behavior, but the provided details are sufficient for correct invocation in most cases.

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?

Parameter documentation coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents bot, case, flow, and comment. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it updates the publication graph to the current scenario revision and bumps the version number. It is clearly about releasing a new version rather than installing or deleting, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools to differentiate itself.

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 intended use case is implied: call this when you want to ship a new version of a previously published scenario. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over market_publish or market_update, but it does mention a refusal condition when nothing changed, which gives some when-not guidance.

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