publish_runbook

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

Annotations already indicate a destructive, read-write operation, and the description adds only 'validate' as an extra behavioral hint. It does not explain what validation involves, what side effects publishing has, or how the destructive nature manifests.

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 extremely short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified for a tool with four parameters and destructive behavior. It is concise in length rather than appropriately sized for the information an agent needs.

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?

There is no output schema, no parameter documentation, and no side-effect disclosure beyond the annotations. An agent cannot safely use this destructive tool because the meaning of 'force' and 'no_git', the target of publication, and the validation behavior are all left unexplained.

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%, and the description does not compensate by explaining the roles of 'root', 'force', 'no_git', or 'markdown'. The phrase 'runbook.md' only hints at the markdown input but provides no semantic guidance for any parameter.

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 identifies a specific action ('Validate and publish') and resource ('a runbook.md'), making the tool's core purpose clear. It does not explicitly distinguish it from siblings, but none of the listed siblings share the 'runbook publishing' scope.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. An agent must infer entirely that this is the appropriate tool for publishing runbooks.

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