Publish theme (make it live)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly warns 'DESTRUCTIVE for the current live theme's status,' disclosing the key side effect. It doesn't mention reversibility or the exact fate of the old theme, but the most critical behavioral trait is clearly disclosed.

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 three tight sentences with zero filler. The action is front-loaded, the destructive warning is placed immediately after, and the confirm requirement concludes it. Every sentence earns its place.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the destructive side effect, and the required confirmation. Minor gaps include no mention of return values or what exactly happens to the old live theme beyond its status changing, but these are not critical for successful invocation.

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 schema already thoroughly documents confirm, and the description reinforces its precondition ('confirm must be true') without adding new meaning. The theme_id parameter has no schema description and the tool description doesn't explain it either, though its meaning is fairly inferable from the tool's purpose. At 50% schema coverage, the description only partially compensates.

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The description clearly states the specific action: making an unpublished theme the live storefront theme. This distinguishes it from generic file operations and defines a clear state change. However, it does not explicitly reference sibling alternatives like list_themes or create_theme, so it stops short of a 5.

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 an explicit precondition: 'only call after the user has previewed the theme and explicitly asked to publish.' This is clear when-to-use guidance and implies when-not-to-use (do not call before user confirmation). It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, so it loses a point for missing alternative routing.

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