Swagger: Publish Portal Product

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

Annotations already declare the operation as destructive, idempotent, and not read-only. The description adds valuable behavior beyond annotations: return values include publication status, a live/preview URL that can be null if URL building fails, product/portal metadata, and an optional warning whose semantics are explicitly clarified — 'a warning does NOT mean the publish failed.' This goes beyond the structured annotations.

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 well-structured: purpose first, then return behavior, then toolset and parameters. There is some redundancy — the first two sentences both communicate the publish effect — and the parameter section duplicates the schema, but the length is justified by the added warning semantics and identifier format details.

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?

With a rich output schema present and only three simple parameters, the description provides a complete summary of return values (status, URLs, metadata, warning), explains the optional tableOfContentsId purpose, and clarifies preview versus live behavior. It doesn't cover permissions or idempotency beyond annotations, but the information an agent needs to call it correctly is present.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, including defaults and identifier formats. The description restates the parameters and adds the accepted identifier formats, but these are also present in the schema, so the description adds marginal value over the structured fields.

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 uses a specific verb ('publish') and resource ('a product's content') and clearly states the effect: making content live or available as preview, visible to portal visitors. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling CRUD tools like swagger_create_portal_product, swagger_update_portal_product, and swagger_delete_portal_product.

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 gives clear context for when to invoke the tool (to publish current content to live or preview) and explicitly advises using preview mode to test before going live. It does not name alternative tools or exclusions, but the guidance is sufficient for an agent to choose this operation.

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