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

Annotations flag a non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent operation; the description goes further by disclosing the actual effect — the artifact becomes publicly accessible without authentication and a shareable URL is returned. It does not cover re-publish behavior or whether publishing can be revoked, which is the main remaining gap.

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 sentences, no filler: the purpose and scope effect come first, then the return value, then the usage cue. Every clause 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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain the return value in detail, and the annotations carry the safety profile. It supplies the crucial public-exposure context; only re-publish/idempotency behavior and link revocation semantics are 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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents artifactId fully (including its provenance from search_artifacts/get_artifact/create_* tools). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('publish') and resource ('an existing Xenition artifact') plus the resulting scope ('public, read-only link anyone can open without signing in'). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like edit_artifact, create_shared_form, or extract_from_artifact.

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?

Explicitly names the trigger condition: 'Use when the user wants to share a document, deck, sheet, board, or other artifact.' It gives good context but does not name alternative sharing tools or state when NOT to publish (e.g. when a link already exists).

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