Api document revisions publish create

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (not read-only, not destructive, not idempotent), so the bar is lower, and the description adds genuinely new consequences: the previous revision is deprecated and a PDF is generated. It still omits reversibility, error behavior on non-validated revisions, and permissions.

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?

A single compact sentence with the action and both side effects front-loaded; no filler. Slightly telegraphic phrasing ('deprecate previous') leaves the object implicit.

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 mutating publish operation in a dense cluster of near-identical revision lifecycle tools (approve, submit_for_review, request_changes), the description covers the outcome but leaves the id semantics and the ordering versus sibling lifecycle steps unspecified, and there is no output schema to fall back on.

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% for the single required 'id' parameter. The description never clarifies whether this id refers to the revision, the document, or the managed document, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 (publish a revision) plus the precondition that the revision must be validated, which distinguishes it from the approve/review siblings. It does not explicitly name those neighbors, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

'Publish a validated revision' implies the precondition (a revision that has already been validated/approved) but never states when to prefer this over approve, submit_for_review, or request_changes, nor what happens if the revision is not validated.

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