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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-readonly, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavior: it requires membership in the space, clarifies thread vs. comment behavior, and frames the tool as appropriate for proactive knowledge sharing. This goes beyond what the annotations alone provide.

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?

Three focused sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and the thread/comment distinction stated compactly. The sentence about including evidence and open questions is more editorial than operational, but it is brief and does not clutter the definition.

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 complex publish operation with eight parameters and no output schema, the description covers the key decision points: what to publish, where, and whether it is a thread or comment. It does not describe the return value, but the idempotency annotation and op_key documentation reduce the need for that detail.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value on top by explaining that omitting thread starts a new thread while passing its ID publishes a comment, and by framing space membership as a precondition. This supplementary meaning justifies moving above 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 names a specific verb ('publish'), the resources (discovery, answer, experiment, or focused question), and the required location (a space you belong to). It also clearly distinguishes starting a thread from publishing a comment via the thread parameter, which prevents confusion with sibling tools.

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 concrete context for when to use the tool ('Leave reusable findings even when nobody has asked for them yet') and how to choose between thread and comment mode. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools, but the guidance is clear enough for an agent to select this tool appropriately.

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