yaaif_agent_spec_publish

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'immutable' as a key trait, implying that published releases cannot be modified. However, it does not disclose other behaviors such as permission requirements, whether publishing is destructive (e.g., overwriting), side effects, or the nature of the response. This is a significant gap for a release-publishing action.

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, well-structured sentence that fronts the primary action and then provides versioning guidance. It is concise and free of fluff. However, it is so brief that it under-covers necessary details, but the conciseness itself is appropriate for the content it does convey.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is woefully incomplete. It omits critical information about the expected_version (likely a concurrency guard), change_summary, and release_channel, and does not describe the outcome or side effects of publishing. An agent cannot reliably use this tool correctly without additional context.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter meanings. It only explains release_kind values (patch/minor/major) and their rationale. It does not clarify the purpose of spec_id, expected_version, change_summary, or release_channel, leaving the agent to infer them from names alone. This is insufficient for a 5-parameter tool with no schema documentation.

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 ('Publish') and resource ('immutable semantic Scenario release'), which makes the tool's core function clear. It also hints at versioning semantics (patch/minor/major) that distinguish it from mere creation or updates. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like export/import, though the term 'publish' is fairly distinguishing.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use each release_kind: 'Use patch for corrections, minor for compatible capability additions, and major for breaking architecture or requirement changes.' This is clear parameter-level usage advice. It does not mention when not to use the tool or alternatives, but the guidance is actionable and sufficient for the primary decision.

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