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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false), the description discloses two non-obvious consequences: the article appears in Aide Chat's public help section and affects customer answers immediately unless usedByAide is false. It omits error and idempotency behavior, but for a non-destructive toggle the disclosure is substantial.

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 action is front-loaded in the first clause and every sentence carries behavioral information. The subclause 'unless it is not used by Aide (`usedByAide` false)' is slightly convoluted and could be stated more directly, keeping it from a top score.

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 one-parameter, non-destructive publish tool with no output schema, this covers the trigger, visibility consequences, type exclusions, and a brief note on the return value ('Returns the document'). Only side-effect nuances such as re-publishing or failure modes are left unaddressed.

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 the single documentId parameter is fully documented there, including where to obtain it. The description adds only implicit meaning about which document types are valid (drafts, not snippets), which is a small increment over the schema baseline.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource, 'Publish a draft article', and clarifies that snippets cannot be published, which implicitly separates this from unpublish_knowledge_document and update_knowledge_article. It stops short of naming any sibling tool explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundaries.

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 a concrete trigger (an article a knowledge gap proposes publishing) and a clear exclusion (snippets are internal and can't be published). It does not say what to do instead when the target is a snippet or how to edit before publishing, so routing guidance is imperfect.

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