publish_liveness_check

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

With no annotations, the description discloses the core behavior (liveness check and lifecycle state advancement) but omits key details such as network I/O, failure handling, or the exact state transition. It is not misleading, but it lacks depth about side effects and preconditions.

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 well-structured sentence that is immediately actionable. Every word contributes to the core purpose, with no filler or redundancy.

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 a nested object schema and no output schema, the one-sentence description is insufficient. It does not explain the role of the schedule object, define return values, or offer any operational context, making it incomplete for an agent to invoke safely and interpret results.

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 does not explain any parameter meaning. jobId and the nested schedule object fields are left entirely to inference, with no help from the text. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 a specific action ('Check whether an observed public article is still live') and a distinct consequence ('advance its lifecycle state'). This differentiates it from siblings like publish_job_verify or publish_verification_due by emphasizing the liveness check and state transition.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions like 'when verification is due' or exclude cases better suited for publish_job_verify, leaving the agent without decision criteria.

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