record_publish

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses append-history semantics, finalization requirement, execution of type-specific checks, default blocking with a listed checklist, and the acknowledgeFindings bypass. This is substantial behavioral context beyond the tool name and schema.

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 dense but fully front-loaded: the action appears first, followed by duplicate behavior, a failure condition, and the check gating. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the key preconditions, side effects, and error paths an agent needs. The main missing piece is what a successful call returns or how success is confirmed, but this is a minor gap for a registration-style tool.

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 only 29%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify channel/channelDocId/url as the published record and acknowledgeFindings as the check bypass, but it leaves docId's role implicit and provides no detail for dir beyond the schema entry.

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 and resource: '登记一次渠道发布到当前文档 head 版本' (register a channel publication to the current document head revision). It also clarifies duplicate-publish behavior, making it clearly distinct from sibling build/export 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?

Provides clear preconditions and routing context: the document must be finalized or the call errors, and error-level findings block by default unless acknowledgeFindings is passed. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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