jianying_publish_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses two important behaviors: it refuses overwrite and requires JianYing closed. However, it doesn't mention what happens on failure (e.g., error if JianYing is open), whether it modifies the draft, or any side effects beyond copying. The disclosed behaviors are useful but not comprehensive.

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 short sentences with no filler. The key constraints ('Refuses overwrite', 'requires JianYing closed') are front-loaded and every word 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?

For a tool with 2 params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose and two critical constraints. However, it lacks details on parameter semantics (especially 'drafts_root'), error behavior, and what 'validated' means in practice. It's adequate but not complete.

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%, so the description must compensate. It doesn't explain the parameters at all: 'project_path' and 'drafts_root' are only defined by their names and types. The description's mention of 'draft' and 'library' gives some context, but it doesn't clarify what 'drafts_root' means or how it relates to 'project_path'. This is a gap, but the parameter names are fairly self-explanatory.

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 states a specific verb ('Copy'), a resource ('validated NEW draft'), and a destination ('JianYing's library'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like jianying_validate_project and jianying_build_project. It also adds a key constraint ('Refuses overwrite'), making the purpose more precise. However, it doesn't explicitly name the sibling it differs from, so it's not a 5.

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 when to use this tool: after validation ('validated NEW draft') and before publishing, and it gives a clear exclusion ('Refuses overwrite'). It also states a prerequisite ('requires JianYing closed'). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like jianying_build_project, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it.

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