Publish a post

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It reveals that publishing changes the status to 'published' and adds a 'published_at' timestamp, plus requires the 'posts:write' scope. This provides meaningful behavioral context beyond the tool's name and helps the agent understand side effects and authorization needs.

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 two concise sentences, front-loading the action and effect in the first sentence and the shorthand relation in the second. Every word serves a purpose, with no filler or repetition.

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 simple status-change tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core action, effect, and required scope. It could add a note about what happens if the post is already published or that only the status field is affected, but the shorthand reference to update_post implies this, making it nearly complete.

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 only parameter (id) is already described in the schema as 'PocketBase record ID of the post to publish', giving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for full coverage.

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 'Sets' with an explicit resource ('a post's status') and the effect (to published, stamps published_at). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like update_post and unpublish_post by describing the exact mutation performed.

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 explicitly frames the tool as 'Shorthand for update_post({ status: 'published' })', giving clear guidance on when to use it as a specialized alternative to updating the status directly. It also mentions the required scope ('posts:write'), which helps in deciding eligibility, though it doesn't explicitly exclude using update_post for other field changes.

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