publish_draft

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the multi-step flow (duplicate check local + finn.no account, push as private draft, finn.no validation, then publish), and warns that the effect is public. It omits auth/login requirements and what happens when the duplicate check or validation fails.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the PUBLIC warning, then the flow, then the confirm rule — every line earns its place. Minor deduction for the fragmented 'PUBLIC.' and indented multi-line formatting that reads less cleanly than a single tight paragraph.

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 needn't be explained, and the description covers the main risk (irreversible public posting gated by confirm) plus the internal validation sequence. Missing details are auth prerequisites and error/duplicate-failure behavior for what is an externally visible mutation.

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. It explains 'confirm' thoroughly as a publish gate that should only be true after user approval, but 'draft_id' is never described beyond its name — the agent must infer it comes from create_draft/list_drafts.

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 draft on finn.no) and adds the crucial scope qualifier that the result is PUBLIC, which distinguishes it from sibling preview_draft/push_draft operations.

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?

Gives an explicit gating condition: call with confirm=true ONLY after the user saw the preview and said yes in chat, which implicitly routes the agent to preview_draft first. The when-to-use rule is unambiguous and enforceable.

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