publish_to_notion

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

While the annotations cover the destructive nature, the description reinforces the high-stakes behavior by emphasizing that it publishes an 'exact' version only after 'explicit confirmation.' This minimizes ambiguity about the irreversible state change being enacted.

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?

The definition is extremely concise, using one powerful sentence. There is no filler, and every word contributes directly to defining the scope of the function.

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?

Given that this is a high-risk, complex, and destructive operation, the definition is incomplete. It tells us *that* it publishes but offers no guidance on the necessary preconditions (beyond 'approved') or the nature of the resulting published state.

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%. The description fails to explain what the complex parameters like 'previewFingerprint' or 'selectedNextActionIndexes' represent. For a high-complexity publishing tool, relying solely on the input schema without semantic context is insufficient.

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 clearly states the resource and action ('Publish an... draft version') and defines the required state of that resource (approved, previewed). It successfully distinguishes this final action from simple draft saving or approval.

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?

It explicitly states that the action requires 'explicit user confirmation,' which acts as a strong usage guideline for when this tool should be called versus a general automated publisher. This implies it is the final step in a multi-stage process.

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