publish

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

Annotations include destructiveHint: true, but the description adds no additional behavioral context. It does not specify what destructiveness occurs (e.g., overwriting existing package versions), whether authentication is required, or any other side effects. The description contributes minimal value beyond the annotation.

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, concise sentence that starts with the action verb. It contains no unnecessary words or redundant information, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

The tool has a full schema, annotations, and an output schema, so the minimal description is acceptable. However, it lacks context about the publishing process, such as whether a prior build is required or what 'configured package index' entails. This could leave an agent uncertain about prerequisites.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description itself does not mention any parameters or add meaning beyond the schema. The schema already documents 'token' and 'project_path' clearly, so no deduction is needed.

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 states the action ('Publish'), the resource ('project distributions'), and the target ('configured package index'). This is distinct from sibling tools like 'build' or 'run', and leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., building first), exclusions, or compare with any sibling tool. The only implied usage is from the verb 'Publish', but no explicit context or alternatives are given.

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