libredesk_publish

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent mutation, and the description adds meaningful context: public visibility changes, AI usability coupling, and a per-conversation cost for FAQ learning. It stops short of covering permissions, reversibility of unpublishing, or rate limits.

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 front-loaded with a high-level purpose and then a compact per-action breakdown, making it easy to scan. Minor redundancy exists, such as repeating that publishing changes what the public sees, and the 'Undocumented API' note is unexplained.

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 seven-parameter multi-action tool with no output schema, the description covers all four actions, their parameters, and the important side effects including cost and public visibility. The 'profile' parameter is not mentioned, and array handling for article/collection IDs is left to the schema.

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 each parameter, including the overloaded 'id'. The description adds value by pairing each action with the parameters it actually uses, clarifying the multi-action dispatch.

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 opening sentence uses specific verbs and resources ('publish articles and collections, take help centers online or offline, switch FAQ learning') and the action list maps each operation precisely. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings such as libredesk_articles or libredesk_ai_knowledge, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Each action is documented with its effect and the conditions under which it matters, such as publishing making an article public and AI-usable when ai_enabled is on. There is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over the related sibling tools, nor any stated exclusions or prerequisites.

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