document_intelligence_publish_document

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful context beyond those flags: the call routes through the domain-agent dispatcher and is scoped to the caller's JWT, tenant, and company. This gives the agent a clearer model of how the action is executed, even though the concrete effects of `publish_document` are not spelled out.

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 brief, front-loaded with the action name, and organized clearly with an Args section. Every line earns its place; the only weakness is that the opening sentence adds little semantic information beyond 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?

For a generic domain-agent dispatcher tool with zero required parameters and an output schema, the description is minimally viable but not rich. It explains the two parameters and the routing context, but lacks any description of what 'publish' means, what the action expects in `inputs`, or when this should be chosen over document creation/writing tools.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates by explaining that `message` is a free-text objective and `inputs` is an optional JSON string of structured inputs. This is enough for an agent to construct a valid call, though examples or expected JSON structure would add further value.

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 identifies the exact domain-agent action (`publish_document`) and the invocation mechanism, but it never states what publishing a document actually accomplishes. An agent must rely on the tool name to infer purpose, and the first sentence is close to a restatement of the name.

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 sibling document tools such as document_intelligence_write_document, document_intelligence_create_report, or direct document operations. The routing/JWT context is mechanism, not usage guidance, and no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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