publish_agent

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

Annotations already indicate this is a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds minimal context by stating that publishing makes the agent available for use, but it does not disclose further behavioral details such as effects on existing published state or on active sessions.

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 short, direct sentences convey the action, resource, scope, and key effect without redundancy. The most important information is front-loaded and every word adds value.

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 simple publish/unpublish operation with two required parameters and helpful annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It could mention what unpublishing does to current availability or any prerequisites, but those gaps are minor given the idempotent and non-destructive hints.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameter descriptions, so the schema already explains agent_id and action. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, leaving it at the baseline for fully documented schemas.

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 names the action (publish/unpublish), the resource (agent), and the tenant scope, and explains the outcome of publishing. It is unambiguous, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools such as list_published_agents or update_agent.

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 intended use is implied by the action name and description: use it to publish or unpublish an agent for the tenant. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor any mention of exclusions or prerequisites.

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