publish_runbook

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating operation. The description adds the useful detail that validation precedes publication, but it does not explain what publishing does to files, git state, or existing runbooks. Given the annotations cover the core safety signal, a 3 is reasonable rather than a lower score.

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 direct sentence with no filler, and the verb and object are front-loaded. Every word earns its place, making it an appropriately concise definition for a tool whose purpose is fairly narrow.

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 four parameters, destructive behavior, and no output schema, a one-phrase description is not enough. The agent does not learn whether validation failure blocks publication, what side effects force and no_git trigger, or how root is used. The description covers basic purpose but leaves too much operationally important context unspecified.

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, but it only loosely maps 'runbook.md' to the markdown parameter. The root, force, and no_git parameters are completely unexplained, leaving an agent to guess their meaning and effects from their names alone. This is a clear gap given four parameters and no schema-level 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 uses a specific action ('Validate and publish') and a concrete resource ('a runbook.md'), so an agent can understand the core function without opening the schema. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but the siblings are mostly unrelated checkpoint/watcher/status utilities, so this is not a significant gap. It is a real verb+resource statement, not a tautology.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It merely implies usage whenever a runbook.md needs to be validated and published. An agent is left to infer that this is the publish path among the listed siblings.

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