ipt_publish

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a write operation ('[writes to the IPT]'), that it validates first, refuses on pre-flight problems, waits by default, and notes the public-resource nuance. It does not mention the confirm parameter requirement, but that is covered in the schema. Overall, it adds substantial behavioral context beyond structured fields.

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 every sentence serving a purpose: it states the action, the validation step, the refusal behavior, the default waiting behavior, and a practical caveat about public visibility. It is front-loaded with the key action and reads well.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core action and key behaviors but omits details about the return value, the confirm requirement (though in schema), and the semantics of metadataOnly and summary. An agent could call it correctly with shortname and confirm, but might not fully understand all options or outcomes. It is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 60% (3 of 5 parameters have descriptions). The description adds context for the wait parameter ('Waits for completion by default'), which is not described in the schema. However, it does not explain metadataOnly or summary beyond what the schema says, and the metadataOnly parameter lacks any schema description, leaving a gap. The description compensates only partially for the moderate 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 clearly states the action (publish), the resource (new version DwC-A + EML), and the validation precondition. It also distinguishes from validation-only tools by saying 'Validate then publish' and 'Refuses when the pre-flight finds problems,' making the purpose unambiguous even without naming a sibling.

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 implies when to use it (to publish a resource version) and provides a useful note about making a resource public, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like ipt_validate_resource or ipt_get_publication_status. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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