yaaif_approval_strategy_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 publishing is a prerequisite for ambient graph resolution, which is useful, but it doesn't state whether publishing is idempotent, whether it overwrites an existing published version, whether it triggers side effects, or what happens if the version is already published. For a state-changing operation, this is a significant gap.

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 sentence with no waste. The core action is front-loaded and the prerequisite context is packed into a parenthetical. It earns its place, though it could add a bit more behavioral detail without becoming bloated.

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 publish/mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description is too thin. An agent doesn't know the effect of publishing, whether it's reversible, what the response is, or how version interacts with the operation. The prerequisite hint is valuable but incomplete.

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. It doesn't explain what 'version' means (e.g., is it required? what if omitted? does it default to latest?) or what format strategy_id takes. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the bare schema property names.

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 ('approval strategy version'), and adds a meaningful prerequisite ('required before ambient graphs resolve it'). This distinguishes it from related tools like yaaif_approval_strategy_create and yaaif_approval_strategy_get, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 parenthetical 'required before ambient graphs resolve it' implies when this tool should be used, but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer the publish step follows creation, but exclusions are absent.

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