Plan a sanitized public-template submission export

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses meaningful behavior: it resolves exactly one reachable release, and it surfaces included/excluded assets, rights declarations, public metadata conflicts, render traces, and the target. This gives the agent useful expectations for selection strictness and output content.

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, dense sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource, then lists the key outputs, ending with the critical no-write guarantee. Every phrase adds useful information.

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 tool with eight parameters, nested objects, seven required fields, and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain how to construct the required inputs, what 'exact reachable' means operationally, how metadata conflicts are resolved, or what the return payload will look like beyond a high-level list.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the meaning or usage of the eight parameters. While parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description only mentions 'target' in passing and does not compensate for the low schema coverage or clarify complex parameters like exactSelector, assetDeclarations, rightsAttestation, or publicMetadata.

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: it resolves one exact reachable Local Published Release and shows all included/excluded assets, rights declarations, metadata conflicts, render traces, and target. This clearly distinguishes the planning view from sibling tools like apply_publication_export by explicitly noting it writes no files.

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 phrase 'without writing files' makes it clear this is the planning/preview step, which distinguishes it from apply_publication_export and similar mutation tools. It provides clear context but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when-not-to-use conditions.

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