ghl_clientportal_get_project_publish_job

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

The description says the API is “side-effecting: opens/edits sandboxes and starts builds,” while annotations declare `readOnlyHint: true`. Even though the tool is framed later as a read, the unqualified side-effect statement contradicts the structured safety metadata.

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 bloated with unrelated API-level guidance about editing sandboxes, checkpoints, and 409s before it reaches the actual read operation. It repeats “read/reports progress” and includes endpoint/source/scope metadata that does not help invoke this tool.

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 polling read tool with no output schema, it usefully describes terminal statuses and the meaning of `publishedUrl` and `error`. However, it omits non-terminal states and is undermined by the contradictory side-effect preamble.

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 100%, and both parameters already have schema descriptions. The description does not add meaningful syntax or semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 that this tool reads/reports a publish job's progress, with a specific verb and resource. It is distinguishable from promotion or project-edit siblings, though the introductory API-level side-effect sentence adds noise rather than clarity.

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 concrete usage guidance: poll every few seconds until `status` is `succeeded` or `failed`, with meanings for `publishedUrl` and `error`. It does not explicitly name alternatives or non-use cases, but the polling context is clear.

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