supportpages_publish_article

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety framing is partly covered. The description adds real value beyond them: the change is externally visible in a hosted help centre, and it is reversible via the web editor or unpublish_article. It does not mention permission requirements or what happens on a revision mismatch.

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?

Three tight sentences: what it does, how to undo it and the guard condition, then the addressing rules. Front-loaded, no filler, and the operational constraint (never both identifiers) sits at the end where it is easiest to apply.

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?

Output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers purpose, reversibility and identifier selection, but a publishing mutation arguably warrants a note on required permissions and on the concurrency semantics implied by expected_revision.

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 carry the load, and it does explain the two mutually exclusive addressing modes: article_id plus current revision versus legacy slug plus uploaded bundle revision, with "never both" disambiguating the slug/article_id choice. It leaves 'workspace' entirely unexplained and does not clarify that expected_revision is mandatory in all cases.

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?

States a concrete verb+object: making an article visible in the hosted help centre, which is a distinct state transition from create/edit/upload. It explicitly names the inverse sibling (unpublish_article), so an agent can separate it from the ~45 other supportpages tools without opening a schema.

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?

"Use only when the user has instructed publication" is an explicit when-to-use gate rather than vague context, and it points to the unpublish_article escape hatch for the reverse case. The only omission is that it doesn't name prepare_article/finalize_article as the prerequisite funnel, but the targeting guidance itself is unambiguous.

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