content.publish.v1

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description says 'Create' implying a write action, but doesn't disclose side effects — whether it publishes, replaces existing content, requires authentication, has rate limits, what happens to drafts, or how Polylang relationships are managed. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a clear gap.

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 a single efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the core purpose. Could arguably be expanded with behavioral details, but for what it contains, it's tight and appropriately sized.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations and incomplete schema coverage (50%). It has nested object structures and an output schema, but the description doesn't explain return values, error cases, how translations are keyed to locales, or what 'publish' means in context (draft default vs published state). For a tool with nested complexity and this many siblings, the description is under-specified.

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 50%. The translations parameter has a helpful example showing the locale-title-content structure, which carries much of the semantic load. However, the 'status' parameter (default 'draft') is only in the schema with no description in the description text, and its allowed values/behavior are not explained. The description adds minimal parameter value beyond the schema example.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('Create multilingual WordPress post variants via Polylang'). It clearly identifies what the tool does — creating multilingual post variants. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like create_post_multilang or content.update_fields.v1, which could overlap in function. The purpose is clear but sibling differentiation is missing.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools include create_post_multilang (likely overlapping purpose), content.update_fields.v1, and checklist.multilang_publish.v1, yet the description provides no when-to-use or when-not-to-use direction. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are offered.

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