Publish an article

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond annotations: it publishes immediately (world-readable), is not idempotent (calling twice publishes twice), requires an API key, consumes quota, and warns when allowance is nearly spent. It also mentions the return value includes public url and editor_url. This adds significant context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false) and does not contradict them.

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 description is concise and well-structured: it opens with the core action, then explains key behaviors in a clear paragraph, and ends with return value. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the most important information. No fluff or repetition.

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 the tool's complexity (6 params, scheduling, visibility, non-idempotency, quota), the description is complete. It covers the main use cases, side effects, prerequisites (API key), and return value. The schema covers parameter details, and the description adds the behavioral context needed for correct invocation. No output schema exists, but the description mentions the return fields, so the agent knows what to expect.

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?

The schema already covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the effect of schedule_at (omit to publish immediately, past timestamp publishes immediately) and the visibility options, which are not fully detailed in the schema. It also mentions cover_image_url can come from generate_cover_image, linking to a sibling tool. This goes beyond the schema, so a 4 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?

The description clearly states the tool creates a new article and makes it live immediately or schedules it, with a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('article'). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly contrasting with create_draft and update_article, and notes the non-idempotent behavior.

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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: use create_draft if the piece is not ready, use update_article to change an existing article. It also explains the scheduling option and the immediate publication effect, giving clear context for choosing this tool over alternatives.

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