Api frameworks publish draft create

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

The annotation set already declares readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description's main job is to add context beyond that. It does add real behavior: the draft is written to the relational DB, a snapshot is recorded to history, and the version is bumped. What it omits is the prerequisite editing state, the effect on any previously published version, and whether the draft is consumed afterwards.

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 short clause with the mutation's effects front-loaded; no filler. The arrow/telegraphic style is dense but efficient.

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?

With no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description is the only source of context, and it leaves out prerequisites (must be in editing mode), the response shape, and failure conditions. For a version-bumping publish mutation that is a meaningful gap.

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 single parameter 'id' is completely undocumented. The description implies the id identifies the editing_draft being published, but it never says whether it is a framework id, a draft id, or a UUID, leaving the agent to guess.

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 (Publish) and a specific resource (editing_draft) for frameworks, which implicitly separates it from siblings like discard_draft, save_draft and publish_draft_preview. It never names those siblings explicitly, but an agent can tell the operation apart from the schema.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus publish_draft_preview (preview before committing), start_editing (prerequisite), or discard_draft. The agent must infer that a draft must already exist and be in editing state.

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