publish_lead_magnet

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It fully discloses the side effects: the first call does not publish, the second call publishes, and it enforces a mandatory human confirmation. It also explains the resource_url pre-publication check and that the tool returns post_urn for chaining with register_published. This is rich, transparent behavioral detail.

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 well-structured: it leads with the purpose, then clearly outlines the two mandatory phases, the confirmation requirement, and the resource testing rule. Each sentence provides essential information without redundancy, and the use of ALL-CAPS for key warnings is effective.

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 tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all critical aspects: the two-phase workflow, the need for explicit user consent, the resource_url check, and the return value (post_urn) plus the recommended follow-up action (register_published). It is complete enough for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 100% coverage with descriptions for all 7 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about the two-phase flow and mentions resource_url testing, but the schema already documents that resource_url is 'vérifiée avant publication'. The description does not add significant parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 the tool publishes a lead magnet on LinkedIn ('Publie un lead magnet sur LinkedIn'), using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the webapp workflow and from siblings by describing the two-phase publishing process and mentioning chaining with register_published, making its unique role evident.

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 provides strong usage context: it must be called twice (first for preview, second with confirmed=true after explicit user consent), and it explicitly instructs not to confirm on the user's behalf. It also mentions testing resource_url before publishing. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., generate_lead_magnet, update_post), only implying its role through the publishing workflow.

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