academy_publish_page

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that publishing requires ownership or owner approval, which is meaningful behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose side effects such as whether the previous live version is destroyed, whether republishing overwrites, or if there's any rollback possibility.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core action (Publiceer een pagina). Every clause earns its place. Slightly under-specified in parts but highly economical.

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?

This is a single-parameter publish action with no output schema and no annotations. The description covers the action, the requirement (ownership/approval), and the parameter. However, it lacks detail on what parameters the id references, the success/failure response, and how to locate the id - gaps that are more significant given the lack of annotations.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the single 'id' parameter. It does say 'Geef id' (give id), which tells the agent to provide the page identifier. However, it doesn't clarify whether id refers to a page id, version id, or concept page id, nor does it explain where to obtain the id (e.g., from list_pages).

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 clear verb+resource structure: 'Publiceer een pagina' (publish a page) and specifies the effect ('maakt de laatste versie live'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on publishing/making-live rather than creation or listing, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 states when to use it ('doe dit als eigenaar, of na akkoord van de eigenaar'), indicating you should have owner rights or owner approval. This is clear usage context, though it doesn't explicitly explain when NOT to use it versus alternatives like update_page_text or create_concept_page.

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