yaaif_desktop_tool_package_publish

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses mutation, artifact creation/upload, and fail-if-exists/missing behavior. It does not mention auth requirements, reversibility, or what happens to an existing artifact during update, so some behavioral gaps remain.

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 dense sentences front-load the action and pipeline, then add mode semantics. No filler; every clause earns its place.

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 19-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this is not complete. It omits return-value expectations, auth/side-effect details, and explanation of several optional parameters, leaving an agent to infer important behavior.

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 coverage is only 32%, so the description must compensate. It adds real meaning for mode (fail semantics) and the pipeline (infer launch contract, zip/wrap, upload). Many optional parameters (enabled, version, capabilities, env_template, timeout_seconds) are not explained, though their names are largely self-explanatory.

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 opens with a specific action ('Add or update a Package Registry entry') and a concrete source ('local command/stdio MCP codebase'), then lists the pipeline. This clearly separates it from sibling package operations like install/delete/update by emphasizing local source and artifact upload.

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?

It gives explicit mode semantics ('add (fail if exists), update (fail if missing), upsert (default)'), which tells an agent how to choose behavior. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the local-codebase/registry-entry context is enough to indicate when this tool applies.

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