publish_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool makes changes visible, but doesn't disclose whether publishing is idempotent, whether it affects all sections or just changed ones, what happens on failure, or any rate-limit/auth considerations. For a mutation-oriented tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a moderate gap.

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?

Two short, purposeful sentences with zero filler. The first states the action, the second gives the timing directive. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), and the description explains the purpose and when to use it. However, it doesn't disclose the result of publishing (e.g., what happens to draft state, whether it returns anything, whether it's idempotent). For a publishing action this operational outcome is meaningful, and with no output schema or annotations explaining it, there's a notable completeness 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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter (document_id) is adequately described in the schema as 'The document ID to publish.' The tool description adds no meaning beyond the schema, but with only one well-documented parameter, the schema already carries the load. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource+result ('Publish an IT Glue document to make section changes visible'), which clearly communicates the tool's function. It distinguishes its role from siblings like create_document or get_document because none of those handle the publish action.

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?

Provides an explicit directive: 'Always call this after creating, updating, or deleting sections.' This clearly tells the agent when to invoke the tool, referencing the sibling section operation tools (create_document_section, update_document_section, delete_document_section). Though it doesn't explicitly describe alternatives or when-not-to-use, the mandatory-use framing is strong guidance.

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