edubase_post_exam_journey_publish

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

Annotations already declare the non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world profile, and the description adds substantial context on top: publication is gated on error-free drafts, unpublished states list affected nodes, remap semantics, and a feature-flag prerequisite. This is exactly the behavioral disclosure an agent needs for a state-changing operation.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the action, then precondition, then remap behavior, then feature requirement. Every sentence carries information the agent needs and none is redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, yet the description still flags the error-message contents on failure. Combined with preconditions and the feature-flag note, nothing required to call this correctly is missing.

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% and the remap property already carries a detailed description, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the consequence of omitting remap (journey not published, affected nodes reported in the error message), which materially clarifies the parameter's role.

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 precise verb (Publish) and resource (the draft of the journey started by an exam), with the effect on users made explicit. It even names a related sibling, edubase_get_exam_journey_graph, for error checking. It does not, however, contrast itself with close siblings like edubase_put_exam_journey_graph, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Clear preconditions are given: the draft must have no errors, the exam journeys feature must be enabled, and remap is required when users sit on removed nodes. This tells the agent when the call will succeed versus fail, though it never explicitly states the 'when to call this vs. other journey tools' framing.

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