publish_article

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a critical platform quirk—that a direct field write reverts to draft and that state is governed by the platform's own flow—which is valuable context. It also states the default state. However, it does not mention permissions, side effects, or return behavior, so it is not fully comprehensive.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main action and default. The note about the platform behavior is useful but slightly verbose, yet still fits in two sentences with no wasted words. Overall well-structured.

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?

The tool has 3 params (1 required) and no output schema. The description covers the purpose and a key pitfall, but misses the meaning of workflow_version and any side effects or prerequisites. For a simple tool, it is adequate but not complete enough to fully prepare an agent without further investigation.

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 coverage is 67% (article_id and workflow_state have descriptions; workflow_version does not). The description adds little beyond the schema: the 'defaults to published' is already in the schema, and it does not elaborate on workflow_version. The third parameter remains undocumented in both schema and description, and the description does not compensate for that gap.

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 a specific verb ('Change') and a specific resource ('knowledge article's workflow state'), with an additional default of 'published'. This distinguishes it from siblings like update_article (generic article update) and publish_changeset (changeset publication), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies this tool is the correct way to change article workflow state, noting that a direct field write silently reverts to draft. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives (like update_article) nor state when not to use this tool, leaving the selection guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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