publish_content_preflight

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a non-obvious behavioral trait ('without applying editorial preferences') and the verb 'Check' suggests a read-only operation. However, it does not state whether the tool mutates state, requires authentication, or how it reports incompleteness or rule violations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to defining the tool's purpose and boundary, making it highly concise and easy to parse.

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?

Given six parameters, three required fields, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse for an agent to fully understand invocation expectations. It does not mention return behavior, error conditions, or what 'completeness' concretely involves, leaving significant gaps.

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 description coverage is 0% and the description provides no parameter-level details. It alludes to payload completeness and platform rules, but it does not explain the meaning or role of title, markdown, platform, tagIds, categoryId, or coverMediaId beyond what the raw schema already shows.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and names a concrete resource ('publish-payload completeness' plus 'verified official platform rules'). It also clarifies scope by explicitly excluding editorial preferences, distinguishing it from content-editing or publishing pipeline tools among the siblings.

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 implies this is a preflight validation step ('Check publish-payload completeness and verified official platform rules') but gives no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives, such as publish_liveness_check or publish_job_create. It does not name alternatives or exclusion criteria, leaving usage largely inferred from the tool name and sibling context.

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