content_prepare_publish

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the description is not solely responsible for safety disclosure. It usefully adds that the action runs under the caller's JWT, tenant, and company scope via the dispatcher, which provides helpful auth and routing context, but it does not describe side effects or consequences of the destructive action.

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 tight and front-loaded: it states the action, explains the routing context, and lists both parameters in a minimal Args block. Every line carries information, with no filler or repetition of the tool name.

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 an output schema exists and annotations cover the destructive/idempotent profile, the description does not need to explain return values or safety. But it still lacks when-to-use guidance and sufficient detail about what the `inputs` JSON should contain, leaving the tool merely minimally viable rather than fully self-contained.

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 description must compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation. It only says message is a 'free-text objective' and inputs is an 'Optional JSON string of structured inputs,' which adds slight clarity but leaves the expected structure, allowed keys, and behavior of the inputs completely unspecified.

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 runs the content domain agent action `prepare_publish` and routes through the domain-agent dispatcher, giving a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explain what `prepare_publish` semantically accomplishes or how it differs from related content actions like content_schedule or content_dispatch, so some ambiguity remains.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives among the many content_* siblings. It describes routing mechanics and scope but provides no conditions, prerequisites, exclusions, or examples that would help an agent choose this tool appropriately.

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