Plan a staged central publication pull request

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so a planning-only behavior is well covered. The description adds useful behavioral nuance by stating that Catalog mode re-verifies the commit and ZIP after a manual merge, which informs the agent about validation behavior beyond the annotation layer.

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?

Two sentences with no filler, and the core distinction between Archive and Catalog is front-loaded. The abbreviation 'PR' might be slightly cryptic for an agent, and the sentence could be clearer about the workflow, but overall it is compact and readable.

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 planning tool with strong annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive) and no output schema, the description conveys the primary workflow difference between the two modes. However, it lacks information about which parameters are expected in each mode (e.g., archivePullRequestNumber is needed for catalog but likely not for archive), and it doesn't tell the agent what the plan output looks like or how to act on the plan. This is adequate but has clear gaps for a tool with five undocumented parameters.

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 there are five parameters, so the description carries the burden for clarifying them; however, it only explains the semantic split of the 'action' parameter (archive vs catalog) and does not add meaning to expectedTemplateId, submissionDirectory, expectedReleaseVersion, or archivePullRequestNumber. The baseline is 3 per the rubric, and the description adds no parameter semantics beyond the action enum, so a 3 is the ceiling here.

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 identifies the tool as a planning step for a central publication pull request with two distinct modes (Archive and Catalog), which differentiates it from the apply counterpart and other plan tools. It names the resource ('PR Plan') and the action ('Plan a staged central publication pull request'), though the phrasing 'Read-only Archive or Catalog PR Plan' is terse and omits a fuller explanation of the staging workflow that the title implies.

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 implicitly tells the agent when each action value is appropriate: choose 'archive' for a single sanitized submission, or 'catalog' when a manually merged Archive PR exists and the tool must re-verify the fixed merge commit and ZIP. It does not explicitly say 'use this instead of apply_publication_pr' or list exclusions, but the read-only annotation and the plan/apply sibling pattern make the usage context reasonably clear.

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